From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 1 17:16:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:16:57 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > CQ: In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the other > hand, is either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel is not > long, or at least is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I don't write > 'rain' with a long vowel. > > RLR: Ditto in Kansa. naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second > accented) nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as in French) > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after mulling > it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable in naNz^iN', > 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? I hope the non-Dhegihanists and non-comparativists on the list will excuse us as we wrestle with this single form and what must seem like something we ought to know by now! Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't! It's really important for those of us working with Omaha - and in a larger sense Dhegiha - to understand how the phonology of forms like this works! I have the impression that Bob is saying that these forms in Kaw, modulo vowels, contrast CVVCV' and CVCV', whereas Carolyn is mentioning CVVCV (CVV'CV?) and CV'CV. Rory seems to have CVVCV' and CVCV'. I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! It strikes me that it would be a bit odd for there to be second syllable accent if this was the third mora. Of course, I'm not positive that "second mora" accent survives the discovery of vowel length, but I suspect there is something in it, as it works so well in accounting for patterns in both Dakotan and Winnebago, albeit in the former case the rule is somewhat discretized by the absence of vowel length, and in the latter case it only appears if you reverse a couple of major sound changes, "in underlying forms." I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! Just out of curiosity, Rory - or anyone, for that matter - what is the pitch contour of naNaNz^iN in Omaha or anywhere else, not necessarily in Dhegiha? I'm wondering, frankly, if the pitch contour isn't H H L naNaNz^iN Is there any trace of falling pitch on the final syllable? H H HL naNaNz^iN I always thought I tended to hear some bisyllabic H L forms as finally accented, though I think that they should really be classed as initially accented. I'd expect pattern one above with initial accent and pattern two with final accent. The fall might be absent, however, in cases where something additional followed, e.g., H H H? H? L naNaNz^iN=i(N)=the It might also be difficult to judge length, if the basis for the judgement was relative length and the form in question had an underlying plural/proximate =i that was deleted finally with, say, compensatory lengthening of the final syllable. This might be controlled for by looking at a form that moved the plural/proximate slot to a later position, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=naN=(i) or didn't require it, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=akHa. And, of course, in =i=the, the =i should resurface. Still another way of controlling which is not an option here is that ablauting final reveals whether the form under consideration has =i by changing -e to -a. If you ask for a form like "to walk" or "walking," it's not necessarily clear what you'd get in a language that lacks infinitives (?) and/or may not have a standard citation form. In fact, it might also be worth looking at your perception of length in a cross-section of forms: first, second, third, inclusive and also imperative and "embedded" under a governing predicate. The personal forms won't work with 'rain', of course! But I think we tend to make the simplifying assumption that length is constant. A good deal might actually depend on factors like inflection or foot structure. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 1 18:33:51 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:33:51 -0600 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' Message-ID: There are a lot of remaining questions. A full fledged reanalysis of accent and length has to be done. The answers won't be simple exactly because of verbs like naaNz^iN 'stand'. Historically it is probably bimorphemic, or, at the very least, susceptible of being folk etymologized as such, since the two parts have discernable meanings: na- 'on foot' and z^iN 'erect'. How are such compounds treated accentually? Or if they're thought of as monomorphemic, is the accent different? No easy answers here. Also, are speakers accustomed to listening for length in unaccented syllables? These are just a few of the imponderables. It's up to us to sort them out. Bob > CQ: In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the > other hand, is either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel > is not long, or at least is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I > don't write 'rain' with a long vowel. > > RLR: Ditto in Kansa. naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second > accented) nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as in French) > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after > mulling it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable in > naNz^iN', 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? I hope the non-Dhegihanists and non-comparativists on the list will excuse us as we wrestle with this single form and what must seem like something we ought to know by now! Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't! It's really important for those of us working with Omaha - and in a larger sense Dhegiha - to understand how the phonology of forms like this works! I have the impression that Bob is saying that these forms in Kaw, modulo vowels, contrast CVVCV' and CVCV', whereas Carolyn is mentioning CVVCV (CVV'CV?) and CV'CV. Rory seems to have CVVCV' and CVCV'. I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! It strikes me that it would be a bit odd for there to be second syllable accent if this was the third mora. Of course, I'm not positive that "second mora" accent survives the discovery of vowel length, but I suspect there is something in it, as it works so well in accounting for patterns in both Dakotan and Winnebago, albeit in the former case the rule is somewhat discretized by the absence of vowel length, and in the latter case it only appears if you reverse a couple of major sound changes, "in underlying forms." I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! Just out of curiosity, Rory - or anyone, for that matter - what is the pitch contour of naNaNz^iN in Omaha or anywhere else, not necessarily in Dhegiha? I'm wondering, frankly, if the pitch contour isn't H H L naNaNz^iN Is there any trace of falling pitch on the final syllable? H H HL naNaNz^iN I always thought I tended to hear some bisyllabic H L forms as finally accented, though I think that they should really be classed as initially accented. I'd expect pattern one above with initial accent and pattern two with final accent. The fall might be absent, however, in cases where something additional followed, e.g., H H H? H? L naNaNz^iN=i(N)=the It might also be difficult to judge length, if the basis for the judgement was relative length and the form in question had an underlying plural/proximate =i that was deleted finally with, say, compensatory lengthening of the final syllable. This might be controlled for by looking at a form that moved the plural/proximate slot to a later position, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=naN=(i) or didn't require it, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=akHa. And, of course, in =i=the, the =i should resurface. Still another way of controlling which is not an option here is that ablauting final reveals whether the form under consideration has =i by changing -e to -a. If you ask for a form like "to walk" or "walking," it's not necessarily clear what you'd get in a language that lacks infinitives (?) and/or may not have a standard citation form. In fact, it might also be worth looking at your perception of length in a cross-section of forms: first, second, third, inclusive and also imperative and "embedded" under a governing predicate. The personal forms won't work with 'rain', of course! But I think we tend to make the simplifying assumption that length is constant. A good deal might actually depend on factors like inflection or foot structure. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 1 23:10:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:10:23 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E56@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > There are a lot of remaining questions. A full fledged reanalysis of > accent and length has to be done. The answers won't be simple exactly > because of verbs like naaNz^iN 'stand'. Historically it is probably > bimorphemic, or, at the very least, susceptible of being folk > etymologized as such, since the two parts have discernable meanings: na- > 'on foot' and z^iN 'erect'. How are such compounds treated accentually? > Or if they're thought of as monomorphemic, is the accent different? I can answer part of this on a basis of past experience in Dorsey and in person, though the answer is innocent of a current appreciation of length. Anyway, in virtually every form that is either a transparent compound or arguably so from its morphosyntax, where the initial element is monosyllabic (length not necessarily clear) the accent is initial. So, forms that have the structure CV=xxxx, have the accent pattern CV'=xxxx, where CV is a proverb (any element that consistently precedes the pronominals, i.e., not a locative) and xxxx the root, or CV is a "main element" and xxxx is proclitic. I didn' recognize length in coming up with this observation, but in most cases length seems not to be a factor. Rather, it is the enclitic boundary that is. There are a limited set of exceptions. - Initial s^u with motion verbs is not accented, and contracts with a following a-initial, e.g., s^u=bdhe' 'I am approaching you', but s^=adha'=i 'he is approaching you'. Presumably this is a short vowelled form. - The demonstratives are stressed before most enclitic "tight" postpositions, e.g., e'=tta 'to(ward) it', e'=di '(up)to it', but not if =thaN is added after a such a postposition, e.g., e=tta'=thaN, e=di'=thaN 'from it'. I suppose one could argue that =thaN causes preceding e'=di and e'=tta to be treated as bases in their own right, suppressing their internal boundaries as it were. - Some (but not all) of the monosyllabic animal terms that serve as possessors or whole-denominators in body-part compounds, e.g., tta=he' 'ruminant-horn' seem not to be accented. This is not consistent, and I speculate that it may depend on the length of the stem, although the stems may appear long in some environments, e.g., as monosyllables. - In many cases where the second (proclitic base or enclitic) element is vowel initial, the accent falls on it, e.g., e=(?)aN' 'how'. This is not always consistently marked in Dorsey. My suspicion is that this is related to the tendency of forms like mu(u)'=ase 'I cut' to be pronounced mw-aa'se. In other words, V'=V => [glide]=VV'. The quality of e in spoken instances of e=a' sequences is more or less lax e or epsilon and rather different from e in other contexts. Inconsistency of marking could reflect careful pronunciations. - Something similar, perhaps at an earlier stage of the language, may account for i-(dh)a'- as the first person of i-locative verbs , but i'-dha- as the second person. The parenthetical dh of the first person is present, but historically epenthetic. The shift of the accent may be explained by still earlier i-a'- where "a" is the first person, cf. Dakotan wa-. The second person is "dha," cf. Dakotan ya-. This is where Winnebago has y-aa- < *i-a- in the first person of (h)i-locatives, and w-aa- < *o-a'- in the first person of (h)o-locatives. - The verbs of 'saying' e=...(h)e' and 'thinking' e=...dhe' and 'doing' e=...(?)aN' (but see above) treat e= as unaccented except in the datives: e'=g(i)-e 'to say to', e'=gidhe (?) 'as expected', e'=g()i)aN 'like'. However many uses of egaN as a conjunctive particle seem to stress it depending on the foot structure of what precedes. - Certain forms are presented by Dorsey as accented on a third syllable in a second or third element in a clitic conplex, e.g., e(=)bdh=e'(=)gaN 'I think'. I assume this is an artifact of looking at pitch accent as stress and trying to work out e=bdh(e)'=e=gaN. Thus these forms may not be exceptional in any real way. Another example like this is Dorsey's waiiN' 'blanket'. (I think Dorsey writing a'=i 'he said it' as ai' is along the same lines.) From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 2 17:27:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:27:38 -0600 Subject: My e-mail address. Message-ID: Hi all, The University is going to cease supporting mail delivery to all addresses containing the sequence "ukans.edu" as of next week or so. Most of the spam we get contains that sequence. So the only address I will be able to be reached at will be rankin at ku.edu. I hope those of you who correspond with me will make sure you have the "ku.edu" version in your address book. John, could you check and see if the list has the right address? The old rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu and rankin at ukans.edu will be non-functional, and mail will be neither forwarded nor delivered to them. On another note, I'm recovering from my trip to Canada, grant application deadlines, etc. and will set about answering my corespondence and sending out copies of the Ablaut paper in the next day or two. Thanks for being patient -- it's been a busy time. Many thanks, Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 3 15:21:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:21:14 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had > to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never > got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! In my field notebook II:17: (Revising the notation somewhat for this context, I'll mark pitch as V' (V high) V (V low) instead of acute and grave accents and convert the contour mark I sometimes used when whole words seemed lower than preceding ones to ... (downstep) ...) 'it's raining' naN'z^iN' (downstep) naN'z^iN' rain stand 'he keep standing' e'di'gaN (downstep) naN'z^iN' e'di' naN'z^iN' s^aNs^aN there stand forever naN'z^iN' s^aN's^aN naN'z^iN' akH dhi's^taN'baz^i it rains forever it's raining without ceasing s^aN'aN's^aN 'forever, perpetually' 'it's raining now' iN'c^HaN (downstep) naN'z^iN' 'he's standing now' iN'c^aN (downstep) naN'z^iN' (asserted by speaker CS) *no* difference I:85 ni'u'z^i naN'z^iNtta a'kH sN'de 'past the water tower' I:121 naN'z^iN'ttaitte (-tHe ??? I wonder now) he ought to stay (i.e., stand) Reverting to using ' to indicate the point at which accent is put (by Dorsey): Dorsey 'stand' 90:17.14 na(N)z^iN'=bi=ama 'he stood' 90:23.20 na(N)z^iN'=i=ga 'stand ye!' 90:23.3 na(N)z^iN' akH(ama) 'they were standing' 90:23.4 dhana(N)'z^iN 'you stand' 90:27.7 na(N)z^iN' tHaN 'he was standing' ... Cases of 'stand' with apparent initial acent: 90:183.6 na(N)'z^iN=b=adaN 'stand and (therefore)' 90:669.6 gdhedaN' na(N)'z^iN 'standing hawk' (a name) Dorsey 'rain' 90:134.15 na(N)z^iN' 'rain' 90:134.17 na(N)z^iN' wiN'=dhaNdhaN'=xti 'rain(drops) just one at a time' 90:134.20 na(N)z^iN-u'bighaN'=xti 'very fine, misting rain' 90:199.10 na(N)z^iN' e' 'that rain' I persistently marked the nasalization of the initial syllable's a with (N) to emphasize that Dordsey doesn't mark nasalization after n, at least not in this case. But, e.g., 90:207.17 naNb=i'dadhe 'two were born' 90:210.6 naNbe' 'hand' 90:220.4 naN 'grown (up)' (of a woman) Also: 90:87.10 na(N)z^i'ha 'hair' (note that the second syllable isn't nasalized) ==== > I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! No. 2279: naNaNz^iN' 'stand; stand up' A1 naN'aNz^iN 'I stand up' Which I believe implies: PreWi naN(aN)'=z^iN naN(aN)'=az^iN No. 2365 niNiNz^u' 'rain' Again, PreWi niNiN'-z^u From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 3 20:06:26 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:06:26 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper. Message-ID: To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't embed them as it was supposed to. At the moment I don't quite know what to do about the problem, since the .pdf file creation is automated. I click on the button that says "make .PDF file", it proceeds to chug along and make one, but it fails to embed the font. If you already have John Koontz's Siouan Doulos font (downloadable from his web site) installed on your PC, the symbols in the paper should read exactly right. If you do not, or if you use a Mac, then in all probability what I sent you will look like the proverbial "dog's breakfast". I'll work on fixing the problem and will re-send the paper when I get things solved. Bob From cstelfer at ucalgary.ca Thu Nov 4 01:56:49 2004 From: cstelfer at ucalgary.ca (Corey Telfer) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:56:49 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E56@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: At the conference this summer I thought somebody (or even a few people) said that the irregular /CVC/ roots in Lakota developed from long vowels in Proto- Siouan. Is this true, or is it just my wishful thinking? If it is true, is there a published reference I can cite? Thanks, Corey. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 4 05:21:54 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:21:54 -0700 Subject: *CVC Stems as *CVVC Stems (RE: Kaw and Osage 'stand') In-Reply-To: <200411040156.iA41unV21866@smtp1.ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Corey Telfer wrote: > At the conference this summer I thought somebody (or even a few people) said > that the irregular /CVC/ roots in Lakota developed from long vowels in Proto- > Siouan. Is this true, or is it just my wishful thinking? If it is true, is > there a published reference I can cite? I don't recall the particular instance in question - maybe something Bob said? - but the Dakotan CVC roots correspond generally to CV'Ce roots in Dhegiha, and these are also the roots that tend to exhibit [CV'?(V)Ce] pronunciations when said slowly and carefully, as opposed to more rapid [CV'Ce]. (See John Boyle's bibliography for Bob Rankin's paper on this phenomenon, which may not mention vowel length.) I think Kathy Shea may have suggested to me that she thinks that these are artifacts of /CV:'Ce/ form and presumably this forms part of her dissertaion in progress. This ties in which the notion that PMV has second mora accent, i.e., these stems may be PS or PMV *CVV'C(e) stems. The *(e) manifests in various ways in various MV languages: as e' ~ a ~ 0 in Dakotan, as e in Dhegiha and Ioway-Otoe, and as 0 in Winnebago. The Dhegiha and IO stems sometimes show fossilized CVC or CV allomorphs, e.g., Da ha'za 'berry' : OP hazi 'grape, grape plant' < *has=hu 'berry stem' : IO has(j^e) 'strawberry' : Wi haa's 'berry; fruit', or Da s^uN'ka 'dog, horse' ~ (tha)s^uN'ke 'his particular horse'~ s^uNg(wiNyela) 'mare' : OP s^aN'ge 'horse' ~ s^aN'(ttaNga) 'wolf' : IO suN'e ~ suN'e 'dog, horse' : Wi s^uNuN'k 'dog, horse'. And sometimes Winnebago shows a final vowel in certain contexts only, e.g., OP maNs^tiN'ge 'rabbit' : Wi was^j^iNk 'rabbit' ~ was^j^iNge'(ga) 'the Rabbit'. Or IO or Winnebago might show an alternative to (e), e.g., Da c^haNte' 'heart' ~ c^haNl(wa's^te) 'be pleasant' : OP naN(aN)'de 'heart' : IO naN(aN)'hc^e < *naNaNkte < *raNaN't(ka) : Wi naNaN'c^ < *raNaN't(e) ~ naNaNc^ge' < *raNaN't(ka). In my kinship term paper I pointed out that sometimes you get *CV--e/a forms, too, where epenthetic glide can be *y (*r between vowels) or *w. There are various ways to analyze the (e) ~ (ka) elements, either morphologically or both phonologically and morphologically. I don't see how a purely phonological analysis is present with *ka in the picture. My own preference is to see the final elements *()e ~ *()a ~ *ka as morphemes with nominalizing force, and there are various ways to see that in historical terms. I have a paper (unpublished) on that, which John would list, and I have commented extensively - well, ad nauseam, really - on the possibilities on this list. I don't know that I have mentioned the length component of the notion before. That stems (no pun intended) from Kathy as far as I know. She and I discuss length and accent from time to time, but I'm pretty sure this was her suggestion or, rather, observation. I guess you would say that Da CVC stems develop from long vowel stems if the analysis is that PMV *CVVCe => PreDa *CVC (a phonological development), and that the various ablaut alternants or *a-extennsions or *ka extensions develop secondarily in Dakotan and the various other languages. Otherwise you would just say that CVC stems are reflexes of PMV *CVVC stems, and that other patterns of PMV stems, including at least *CV(V) and *CVCV exist. Either way you could argue that Da forms like CVCa reflect *CVV'Ca, while the variants in CVCe' and compounds accented CVC(CV'...) reflect *CVC with shortening of the stem internal vowel from *CVVC /__ "certain morphemes." Shortening leads to the following vowel (the new second mora) taking the accent. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Nov 4 07:28:49 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:28:49 +0100 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Bob, thanks a lot for ablaut.pdf >To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't embed them as it was supposed to... << The various fonts actually appear a bit strange: whereas in the tables some fonts seem to display correctly (s-hacek, i/a-nasal hook, gamma?), this doesn't hold for normal text (where there are weird c-cedilla etc.) So hopefully I nevertheless will gather what you're saying ;) Alfred From kdshea at ku.edu Thu Nov 4 08:34:52 2004 From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:34:52 -0600 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' Message-ID: > > > Carolyn writes: > >> In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the other > hand, is > either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel is not long, or at > least > is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I don't write 'rain' with a long > vowel. > > > Ditto in Kansa. > > > > naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second accented) > > > > nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as > > in French) > > > > 'Boy' would be dissimilar in any event [...] > > > > So Kaw and Osage have no homonyms among these three. > > > > Bob > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after > mulling it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable > in naNz^iN', 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? > > Rory > I'm just sending a quick answer, because it's late and I can't see straight. I got around to asking Uncle Parrish (my only remaining consultant) about this on the phone Monday (even though it's hard to hear very well on the phone). He readily recognized and produced naNz^iN' naNz^iN'i 'It keeps raining.' (In fact he said it was doing that at the time in Oklahoma where he was.) I didn't hear a long vowel in the first syllable of either word (in line with Rory's note above), and the accent (higher pitch) was on the second syllable of each word (consistent with Bob's recording of the position of the accent in these two words in Kansa), with the final syllable of the last word being long, which I attributed to the presence of what we've been calling the "proximate" morpheme -i. When I asked Uncle Parrish if the first syllable "naN" in either word sounded long to him, he said that it didn't but took pains to point out to me that the sentence-final syllable was long, or "drawn out." He repeated this sentence several times for me, and his comments coincided with my observations. The long second syllable of naNz^iNi' 'stand' sounded to me as though it had two "chest pulses," but I don't remember now if the high pitch of that syllable fell or trailed off a bit at the end of the sentence or not since I didn't write it down. Of course, the nasalization of the preceding vowel probably spread to the final -i, but it's hard to distinguish oral from nasal i ~ iN in final position. Kathy From rankin at ku.edu Thu Nov 4 16:01:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:01:01 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: I'll send out another copy as soon as I get the font problem figured out. In the meantime, if you want you could go to John Koontz's website and download the Siouan Doulos font. That *should* clear up the remaining symbols. Best wishes, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred W. Tüting" To: Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:28 AM Subject: Ablaut paper > Bob, > thanks a lot for ablaut.pdf > > > >To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf > file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's > computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the > more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't > embed them as it was supposed to... << > > > The various fonts actually appear a bit strange: whereas in the tables > some fonts seem to display correctly (s-hacek, i/a-nasal hook, gamma?), > this doesn't hold for normal text (where there are weird c-cedilla etc.) > > So hopefully I nevertheless will gather what you're saying ;) > > > Alfred > > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 5 19:59:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:59:56 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea Message-ID: I happened on this site, which offers what I'd consider a good explication of the Sakakawea (etc.) name in connection with North Dakota's Lake Sakakawea park. http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm No particular new information, but an interesting reference: "The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia. The dotted s at the end [comment refers to a form Tsakaka-wia-s which is not present here - JEK] stands for sh in English, and makes the compound word a proper name. It is equivalent to the definite article the. Anglicizing this a little to suit those using only the English alphabet and unfamiliar with the scientific use of the vowels, and leaving off the initial t sound, which is hard for English tongues, we have the spelling in English, Sakakawea. During the last thirty years I have made numerous additions in manuscript to Mathews' book, and also some corrections, but I have no occasion to correct the spelling of the words in question." I don't know if Hall's annotated copy of the Matthews book is in a collection that can be consulted. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Nov 5 20:40:21 2004 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:40:21 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I happened on this site, which offers what I'd consider a good explication >of the Sakakawea (etc.) name in connection with North Dakota's Lake >Sakakawea park. > >http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm > >No particular new information, but an interesting reference: > >"The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State >Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The >editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. >L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North >Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." > >Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this >dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia. The >dotted s at the end [comment refers to a form Tsakaka-wia-s which is >not present here - JEK] stands for sh in English, and makes the compound >word a proper name. It is equivalent to the definite article the. >Anglicizing this a little to suit those using only the English alphabet >and unfamiliar with the scientific use of the vowels, and leaving off the >initial t sound, which is hard for English tongues, we have the spelling >in English, Sakakawea. During the last thirty years I have made numerous >additions in manuscript to Mathews' book, and also some corrections, but I >have no occasion to correct the spelling of the words in question." > >I don't know if Hall's annotated copy of the Matthews book is in a >collection that can be consulted. > >John E. Koontz >http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz Hall's annotated copy of Mathews grammar and dictionary is at the North Dakota Historical Society in Bismarck and is available for people to look at. I think his explanation is basically correct. John Boyle From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Fri Nov 5 21:24:17 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:24:17 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea (Charboneau) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Members: It is intersting to note that the decendants of Charboneau (that is how they spell their name today) live here on the Spirit Lake Reservation Ft. Totten, ND. The SHSND also has a folder on him in their files. Louie Garcia From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 6 19:07:15 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:07:15 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: > (John) http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm No particular new information, but an interesting reference: "The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia...<< I think that Hall is very convincing with this. IMVHO, it's the more a quite striking evidence that in those days people like Clark and Lewis (and maybe Charbonneau himself - who could not read and write) were not educated enough to even spell a French name correctly (not to speak of Hidatsa expressions). "The following references are to the Original Journal of the Lewis and Clark Exposition, N. Y., 1904. I. Variations in the spelling of Charbonneau: Clark's spelling. References: Vol. I., 217, 226, 239, 248, 250, 251, 269, 271, 274, 275, 311; Vol. II., 198; Vol. III.. 111; Vol. V., 9, 341, 344; Vol. VII., 330. Chabono, Charbonee, Chabonoe, Chabonat, Chaboneau, Chabonah, Chaubonie, Charbono, Shabonoe, Shabonah, Shabona. Shabowner, Shabono, Shabownar, Toisant Chabono, Tousent Chabono, Teusant Charbono. Lewis' spelling. References: Vol. I., 257, 284, 301; Vol. II., 197, 226, 273; Vol. V., 48; Vol. VII.. 331, 359. Charbono. Sharbono, Sarbono, Touasant Charbono, Touisant Charbono, Tauasant Charbono." The name of Charbonneau is pretty close to French _charbonnier_ German 'Köhler', the name of our Bundespräsident (Federal President) Horst Köhler ;-) BTW, here's an interesting site on Toussaint Charbonneau: http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/CorpsOfDiscovery/TheOthers/Civilians/ToussaintCharbonneau.htm Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 7 13:00:53 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:53 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: Hi, from the statement here, http://www.state.nd.us/hist/LewisClark/translation.html in what language do you think did Sakakawea talk to her husband? Was it Hidatsa too (that, reportedly, Charbonneau didn't speak/understand? too well)? Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 8 17:05:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:05:38 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418E1C85.1050603@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > from the statement here, > http://www.state.nd.us/hist/LewisClark/translation.html > in what language do you think did Sakakawea talk to her husband? Was it > Hidatsa too (that, reportedly, Charbonneau didn't speak/understand? too > well)? I suppose he must have been able to speak and understand Hidatsa after a fashion. Otherwise he wouldn't have fit into the chain of translation, and he would probably also have been severely handicapped in his trading activities. I suppose we would know if communication between Sacagawea and Charbonneau was actually in pidgin French, since in that event Charbonneau wouldn't have been an essential element in the chain. Charbonneau gets a lot of bad press, and may have more or less earned it, but he must have been a fairly sharp character in a number of ways to make his living the way he did. Incidentally, given his later life and the nature of the Missouri trade, he must have also been able to speak at least some Dakota, too. If only for linguistic reasons, it would be interesting to know more about the language abilities and communication techniques of the early traders, and especially whether they and the Native Americans they were speaking to made use of pidgins, since these would have served as conduits for loan words and the spread of syntactic constructions, etc., especially if they existed before the European traders started to make use of them. We do know some things, since we have word lists accumulated by some of the traders, and we probably have some specific commentary, too, but this is not really an area in which I am well-informed. It's possible that Sacagawea herself may not have been entirely fluent in Hidatsa at this point, though she'd had about 4 years starting at about age 12 to learn it. Her value to the Expedition as a translator was probably that she could speak Shoshone as well as Hidatsa. The Expedition intended to travel through Shoshone territory and buy horses from the Shoshone. Incidentally, this page refers to Charbonneau as "Troussant Charbonneau," but my recollection is that it was Toussaint - "All Saint(s)." I suppose he was born or maybe it's christened on November 1? (Not that I'm necessarily in position to complain about other folks' spelling, and I'm fairly slovenly about editing, too.) From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Nov 8 19:25:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:25:20 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: >(John) Incidentally, this page refers to Charbonneau as "Troussant Charbonneau," but my recollection is that it was Toussaint - "All Saint(s)." I suppose he was born or maybe it's christened on November 1? (Not that I'm necessarily in position to complain about other folks' spelling, and I'm fairly slovenly about editing, too.)<< You're right - and I've found quite some variants how this first name is spelled ;-) But would you judge from this that this site's statement on the "chain of translation" is erroneous as well? ("It worked something like this: A native speaker would ask Sakakawea a question in Hidatsa, she in turn would then REPEAT (!) the question to her husband Troussant Charbonneau. Charbonneau, in turn, would ask a French speaker (perhaps fur trader Rene Jessaume) the same question in French, who would then translate it to English for Lewis and Clark.") To me, this repetition doesn't make much sense (except for the fact that Ch.'s knowledge of the Hidatsa language was not good enough to wholly understand other speakers than his wife - who might have rephrased the sentences for him). This, BTW, sometimes is the case with me understanding my wife's Transylvanian Saxon much better than that spoken by her compatriots. Here's an - original Canadian-French - text on the issue with some interesting details: http://www.leveillee.net/roots/frowen4-10.htm Interesting also to know that 'Pomp' is said to having had a German son named Anton Fries in Bad Mergentheim/Baden-Wuerttemberg, whose < parents are noted as "Johann Baptist Charbonnau of St. Louis 'called the American in the service of Duke Paul of this place and Anastasia Katharina Fries, unmarried daughter of the late Georg Fries, a soldier here.'" The child died three months later, after which Jean Baptiste left for the United States >. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature4/online_extra.html Alfred P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 8 21:44:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:44:02 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FC820.5060407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > But would you judge from this that this site's statement on the "chain > of translation" is erroneous as well? ("It worked something like this: A > native speaker would ask Sakakawea a question in Hidatsa, she in turn > would then REPEAT (!) the question to her husband Troussant Charbonneau. > Charbonneau, in turn, would ask a French speaker (perhaps fur trader > Rene Jessaume) the same question in French, who would then translate it > to English for Lewis and Clark.") To me, this repetition doesn't make > much sense (except for the fact that Ch.'s knowledge of the Hidatsa > language was not good enough to wholly understand other speakers than > his wife - who might have rephrased the sentences for him). I think the mistake in the web page's presentation of the chain is that Sacagawea is represented as translating from Hidatsa to Hidatsa, whereas it should be from Shoshone to Hidatsa. We don't really have any basis for speculating which of Sacagawea or Charbonneau could speak better Hidatsa. Actually, I'd be willing to suppose that Sacagawea could speak at least some French. > P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? Lewis & Clark depict it as short for Pompey, I think, i.e., the English version of Latin Pompeius. I don't know the details, but I think the Journals indicate that the name was supplied by one of the two captains. On the other hand, Jean Charney told me it resembles Comanche pampi 'head'. The Shoshone would be about the same. I think that's would be a voiceless i in final position. She wondered if it might possibly be a Shoshone name, or part of it. This would be entirely hypothetical, of course, and she didn't have a great deal of confidence in the hypothesis. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:10:34 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:10:34 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: POMP Clark’s nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint CHARBONNEAU and SACAGAWEA, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi (sometimes written pampi) ‘head.’ This hypothesis is weakened, however, by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect encountered by Lewis and Clark had only b (written p ): Clark’s record of the Shoshone name for BEAVERHEAD ROCK, for instance, has pap, not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for YAMPA. (Given that he writes pap for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another situation write Pomp for ‘head’ as a personal name.) It seems more likely that Clark’s paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from Georgia to New Hampshire. (There were other slave-names of Roman origin, such as Cato and Scipio.) In the vernacular usage of Clark’s time, the name Pompey no longer denoted the Roman military hero but was merely a patronizing (if in this case affectionate) nickname given to one’s social inferior. Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean Baptiste as “my boy Pomp” and “my little danceing boy Baptiest”: if you wish to return to trade with the indians and will leave your little Son Pomp with me, I will assist you [20 Aug 06 WC in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 1.315] Continuing in loco parentis in 1820, Clark charged the government $16.37½ “for two quarters’ tuition of J. B. Charboneau, a half Indian boy, and firewood and ink” and $1.50 for “one Roman history for the boy,” besides numerous other educational and maintenance expenses (ASPIA II. 291). Clark may have named the prominent sandstone butte in central Montana after Pompey’s Pillar, an 88-foot column of granite in Alexandria, Egypt—which was actually dedicated in the third century AD to the Roman emperor Diocletian, not to General Pompey. It seems reasonable to assume in any case that he had Jean Baptiste in mind at the naming. This rock which I shall Call Pompy’s Tower is 200 feet high and 400 paces in secumphrance [25 Jul 06 WC 8.225] From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:09:22 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:09:22 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: >On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > > >>P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? >> >> > >Lewis & Clark depict it as short for Pompey, I think, i.e., the English >version of Latin Pompeius. I don't know the details, but I think the >Journals indicate that the name was supplied by one of the two captains. >On the other hand, Jean Charney told me it resembles Comanche pampi >'head'. The Shoshone would be about the same. I think that's would be a >voiceless i in final position. She wondered if it might possibly be a >Shoshone name, or part of it. This would be entirely hypothetical, of >course, and she didn't have a great deal of confidence in the hypothesis. > Here's my stab at it for my L&C Lexicon. (I'll send it in both the ASCII and HTML versions.) Alan Pomp Clarks nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi (sometimes written pampi) head. This hypothesis is weakened, however, by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect encountered by Lewis and Clark had only -b- (written -p-): Clarks record of the Shoshone name for Beaverhead Rock, for instance, has pap, not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for yampa. (Given that he writes pap for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another situation write Pomp for head as a personal name.) It seems more likely that Clarks paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from Georgia to New Hampshire. (There were other slave-names of Roman origin, such as Cato and Scipio.) In the vernacular usage of Clarks time, the name Pompey no longer denoted the Roman military hero but was merely a patronizing (if in this case affectionate) nickname given to ones social inferior. Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean Baptiste as my boy Pomp and my little danceing boy Baptiest : if you wish to return to trade with the indians and will leave your little Son Pomp with me, I will assist you [20 Aug 06 WC in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 1.315] Continuing in loco parentis in 1820, Clark charged the government $16.37½ for two quarters tuition of J. B. Charboneau, a half Indian boy, and firewood and ink and $1.50 for one Roman history for the boy, besides numerous other educational and maintenance expenses (ASPIA ii. 291). Clark may have named the prominent sandstone butte in central Montana after Pompeys Pillar, an 88-foot column of granite in Alexandria, Egyptwhich was actually dedicated in the third century ad to the Roman emperor Diocletian, not to General Pompey. It seems reasonable to assume in any case that he had Jean Baptiste in mind at the naming. This rock which I shall Call Pompys Tower is 200 feet high and 400 paces in secumphrance [25 Jul 06 WC 8.225] From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:25:59 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:25:59 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEE92.7040904@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: My apologies: the HTML apparently didn't make it through the Siouan server. If anyone wants the formatted version of my Pomp entry, I'll be happy to send a small Word file. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 00:11:20 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:11:20 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEEDA.8070606@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan wrote: > It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi > (sometimes written pampi) ‘head.’ This hypothesis is weakened, however, > by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect > encountered by Lewis and Clark had only b (written p ): Clark’s > record of the Shoshone name for BEAVERHEAD ROCK, for instance, has pap, > not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for YAMPA. (Given that he writes pap > for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another > situation write Pomp for ‘head’ as a personal name.) What is the Shoshone phonemic system like? If this question were coming up in Siouan, we'd probably be writing it paNpi or baNbi. Depending on the degree of nasalization at the end of the first syllable, an English speaker might write it either with or without an [m]. In any case, I don't see that the two possible explanations are mutually exclusive. Supposing the man was named 'Head', Pa(m)pi in Shoshone, the commonness of the name Pomp(ey) in American society at that time would naturally predispose Lewis and Clark to interpret the name that way, even if they wouldn't have put the [m] in for a word that to them was semantically void. Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 9 05:27:53 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:27:53 -0800 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Hi all, In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Tue Nov 9 11:40:31 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:40:31 +0000 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Dave: Big is chito /cito/ in Choctaw and ishto in Chickasaw, the Muskogean languages most relevant to the question. Quinary numeral systems aren't rare in North America, hence the use of 'two bones on the hand' for 'seven', etc.. Best Anthony >>> dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com 09/11/2004 05:27:53 >>> Hi all, In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. <<<>>> From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 14:44:54 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:44:54 -0600 Subject: two, three, seven, eight In-Reply-To: <20041109052753.66315.qmail@web53803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David wrote: > In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? I think this was actually discussed on the list, perhaps about six months to a year ago. This system certainly occurs in Dhegiha, e.g. OP naNba - 'two' ppe'dhaNba - 'seven' dha'bdhiN - 'three' ppedhabdhiN - 'eight' I don't think anyone knows what the ppe- element is, but it presumably refers somehow to the first five. > Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 9 15:17:13 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:17:13 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Re: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Re: two, three, seven, eight > . . . ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering > if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean > languages. /cito/ or, in the 'tall' sense, /ca:ha/, where "c" is the palatoalveolar affricate. This is Choctaw, and there are some cognates at least farther East. In Creek /lhakko ~ lhakki/ where "lh" is the voiceless lateral. > In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is > thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably > an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, > which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the > Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably > at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a > coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to > Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. Right. The OVS languages allow us to reconstruct an initial syllable, so the PSi should be something like *ihtaN. I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the right as you insert additional lexical material. Siouan has at least two distinct roots for 'big'. One is our *ihtaN and the other gives the CH-WI, HI and some other forms. I can't remember the set offhand, but it comes out something like *xete. Both words seem archaic since they occur in dispersed subgroups. > By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that > an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Aspirated. And Swanton uses "oN" for an allophone of /aN/, so Ofo has /ithaN/. Tutelo is similar. I have my doubts about the Cherokee, but the first thing to do is check other Iroquoian. There is no real evidence for a Siouan-Cherokee contact (excluding Catawba of course, but Catawba doesn't have the 'big' cognate.). As for the numeral words, we've already written quite a bit on this and the stuff is in the archives of the list. I did a paper on the numbers many years ago (pre-computer). Numerals 1-5 and probably 6, along with 10 are pretty easily reconstructible, and a decimal counting system is suggested. But early on you get partial quinary systems developing on top of whatever original system there was. I've tried to relate this to particular hand signs in the Plains Sign Language (PSL). But the quinary systems are somewhat different in the different languages signaling somewhat independent development. In Biloxi it may have been under the influence of Muskogean, which also has quinary terms. One of my M.A. students did a thesis on numeral systems in eastern North America. At any rate, it's hard to reconstruct 7, 8, 9 for PSi. 'Nine' may have been *k(i)$aNhka, but that term is shared with Algonquian and its source is by no means clear. I see that the PBS program NOVA is presenting an episode that explores the notion that the original Native Americans came from the continent of Europe (the Solutrean hypotheis, I imagine). That ought to be interesting and plenty controversial. Bob From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Tue Nov 9 15:35:13 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:35:13 +0000 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Rory - it's aspirated t. Anthony >>> rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu 09/11/2004 14:44:54 >>> David wrote: > In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? I think this was actually discussed on the list, perhaps about six months to a year ago. This system certainly occurs in Dhegiha, e.g. OP naNba - 'two' ppe'dhaNba - 'seven' dha'bdhiN - 'three' ppedhabdhiN - 'eight' I don't think anyone knows what the ppe- element is, but it presumably refers somehow to the first five. > Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Rory ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. <<<>>> From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 9 17:17:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:17:11 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEE92.7040904@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Pomp Clarks nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint > Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. > > It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi > (sometimes written pampi) head. This hypothesis is weakened, however, > by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect > encountered by Lewis and Clark had only -b- (written -p-): Clarks > record of the Shoshone name for Beaverhead Rock, for instance, has pap, > not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for yampa. (Given that he writes pap > for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another > situation write Pomp for head as a personal name.) This seems reasonable. I'll see if I can refer this to a specialist. > It seems more likely that Clarks paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste > found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern > elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet > name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in > his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay > horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common > names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at > least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from > Georgia to New Hampshire. Thanks, I've also wondered about this pattern as a source, but couldn't document it well enough to venture it! > Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean > Baptiste as my boy Pomp and my little danceing boy Baptiest : Referring ahead to Tony's comment, I wonder if pamp(i) might not be possible variation of Bap(tiste), at least for an English speaker, assuming that the nasality was more or less optional. I don't believe nasal vowels are phonemic in Shoshone et al. but of course the logic of the system and its implementation are two different things. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 18:56:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:56:49 -0600 Subject: affixes vs. enclitics (was: two, three, seven, eight) In-Reply-To: <153a01c4c66f$31d7eb00$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: >> By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that >> an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Anthony wrote: > Rory - it's aspirated t. Thanks, Anthony! Bob wrote: > Aspirated. And Swanton uses "oN" for an allophone of /aN/, so Ofo has /ithaN/. > Tutelo is similar. I suppose I should also have asked about Biloxi. Is it known whether the initial /t/ there is pre- or post-aspirated, tense, or whatever? >> In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is >> thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably >> an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, Bob: > I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly > bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that > can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the > right as you insert additional lexical material. Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't quite sure, but the term enclitic popped into my head as I was writing that, so I decided to put it in to see what happened. I'll have a better sense of the difference in the future! However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of abbreviated speech dropping syllables. iNgdhaN'ga - 'cat' siNde' - 'tail' sne'de - 'long' But the word for 'puma' or 'mountain lion', "long-tailed cat", is iNgdhaN'siNsne'de where the -ga in iNgdhaN'(ga) and the -de in siN(de)' are absent, leaving only the -de in sne'de at the end of this NP. >>From this and other cases, I would suppose an earlier compounding grammar in which the NP or stative verb phrase could be closed by one of these affixes, such that only the final one was allowed. The one chosen would be the one normal to the last element, not the one normal to the head of the phrase. Thus, the grammatical slot for a closing affix would indeed move to the right as additional lexical material is inserted, though the specific particle itself could only be dropped, but not moved. In a system like this, would we call those phrase-closing morphemes enclitics, or affixes? (Note that I don't claim that this grammar is productive now, and that when I originally used the term 'enclitic' I had something like proto-MVS in mind.) Thanks again for the feedback! Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 9 19:57:30 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:57:30 -0800 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <1C6EE5238E283C9A3D5C3F38@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Yeah, yinisa is apparently a "southeastern" term that's been shuffled around the Muskogean languages as well as Biloxi and Cherokee. I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... Thanks, Dave Wallace Chafe wrote: Seneca for buffalo is degiya'goh (accent on a and nasalized o). Apparently this comes from *yotekriya'koh or something similar. Cayuga and Onondaga have similar words. It isn't clear what the word means. Wally --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 9 20:13:07 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:13:07 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] affixes vs. enclitics (was: two, three, seven, eight) Message-ID: > I suppose I should also have asked about Biloxi. Is it known whether > the initial /t/ there is pre- or post-aspirated, tense, or whatever? I wrote a paper on this. There are a few cases in the Biloxi dictionary where Dorsey apparently did hear aspiration and actually wrote "kx" or the like. There are maybe 6 or 8 such cases. So those cases in which we can say we have postaspiration. Everywhere else he followed his usual transcription practice, to wit: 1. If he hears a stop as lenis, he writes the dot under it. He "listens for" lenisness and his dotted stops can probably be thought of as reliably non-aspirated. 2. If he hears an aspirate he normally writes a plain stop (and compares it to English stops in the pronunciation key), BUT if he isn't sure which kind of stop he heard, he writes the plain stop by default. So dotted stops are reliable, but plain ones -- not so much. Nonetheless there is an excellent statistical correlation between the Biloxi stops as recorded by Dorsey and the aspiration contrast in other Siouan languages. So the bottom line is: We don't know exactly what the phonetic augment was in the Biloxi stop series, but it was probably post aspiration as in both Ofo and Tutelo. > However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really > mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common > "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); > and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, > but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped > in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of > abbreviated speech dropping syllables. That's true, but those "root extensions", to use Wes Jones' term for them, are still not enclitics, since they don't migrate from the end of the first element in the compound to the end of the compound. This doesn't come through with examples like siNsne'de because both siNde and snede end in -de. Pick an example where the extension on the first element is different from the one on the second, and you'll see that the first suffix is just gone -- it doesn't migrate to the end of the compound. I agree that in compounds of this sort, you get ROOTs not stems in the first part. Bob From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Tue Nov 9 20:57:34 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:57:34 -0800 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <20041109195730.3236.qmail@web53808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dave, There are two Northern Iroquoian verb roots meaning "big". The most widespread one is -owaneN- (nasalized e) or something similar, which I believe shows up in all the languages. It refers not only to size but also to importance. Seneca has a second one, -steN-, that refers only to the size of physical objects and occurs only with incorporated noun roots. It may be limited to Seneca. It would be nice if the Cherokee t were a w, but I guess it isn't. Wally > I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for > "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to > Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it > from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean > influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that > Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what > the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Tue Nov 9 22:15:27 2004 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:15:27 -0600 Subject: mystery words Message-ID: Hi all, Someone has asked me if I can translate the following phonetic phrase: takita owanna nakai While they look Siouan (at least at first glance) they're clearly not Hidatsa. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks, John Boyle From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 9 22:42:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:42:04 -0700 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob: > > I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly > > bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that > > can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the > > right as you insert additional lexical material. > > Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't quite sure, but the term > enclitic popped into my head as I was writing that, so I decided > to put it in to see what happened. I'll have a better sense of > the difference in the future! This might be a sort of cline involved here. As far as I know the -ka that appears to be more or less separable in various stative verb sets, e.g., *htaN-ka 'big' (neglecting the initial vowel) or *pras-ka 'flat' 'flat' is always a fixed element of the stem in languages that have it. I guess I'd have to re-check 'big' in Winnebago. One assumes that either this is some kind of stem-formant or alternatively, something easily lost. I tend to prefer the former explanation. If it is a stem-formant, a reasonable possibility is that it is *ka 'yon' acting more or less as a clause final marker and then absorbed into the verb. I recall that demonstratives sometimes become copulas in other language families, but I don't recall the examples. The ka-formant strikes me as something like that. *ihtaN ka => *htaNka big that it's big Not all stative verbs have this formant where it occurs in some, but perhaps not all stative verbs have the same sort of origin. The point of this is that presuambly at some point -ka was an enclitic, if before that it was independent. But I agree that it's probably not enclitic even in Dhegiha where it is unaccented, e.g., ttaN'ga Presumably the process of an independent element becoming a fixed part of the stem, not even really a productive suffix, involves a series of intermediate behaviors, each of which fits systematically into some stage of the languages in question. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 00:05:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:05:11 -0700 Subject: Truncated Stems (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really > mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common > "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); > and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, > but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped > in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of > abbreviated speech dropping syllables. > > iNgdhaN'ga - 'cat' > > siNde' - 'tail' > > sne'de - 'long' > > But the word for 'puma' or 'mountain lion', "long-tailed cat", is > > iNgdhaN'siNsne'de > > where the -ga in iNgdhaN'(ga) and the -de in siN(de)' are absent, > leaving only the -de in sne'de at the end of this NP. > > From this and other cases, I would suppose an earlier compounding > grammar in which the NP or stative verb phrase could be closed by > one of these affixes, such that only the final one was allowed. Because the syllables that come and go here are fixed parts of the cognates elsewhere, and are more or less unpredictable, I'd argue that what is happening here is that an originally organic part of the stem is being deleted in compounding. Putting it the other way, the bound stem is truncated. I take these truncated forms as a Dhegiha version of Dakotan C-final stem form. That is, iNgdhaN- and siN- in iNgdhaN-siN-snede 'puma' are what happens to the historical bound alternants *iNkraNk- and *siNt- of the corresponding free forms *iNkraNk-e 'cat' and *siNt-e 'tail'. Since 'long' comes last, it takes the free form *sret-e, so the whole presupposed pattern something like *iNkraNk-siNt-sret-e. Obviously, in the Dhegiha context the free forms are produced by adding e, or the bound forms are produced by substracting it. I just went over the options on that for PMV in another connection, so I won't repeat it here. What I think I can fairly add here is that the loss of not only the "final e" but also the preceding consonant, so that iNgdhaNge reduces to iNgdhaN, not iNgdhaNg or something like that is consistent with Dhegiha's stringent restrictions on consonant clusters and also on consonant-finals. I think this explains truncation in Dhegiha vs. simple loss of final vowels in Dakotan: Dhegiha doesn't like Cs clusters (and reduces *ps and *ks to s) and Dhegiha doesn't like consonant finals. I don't want to suggest that iNgdhaNsiNsnede or other particular similar forms like waz^iNttu or s^aNttaNga, etc., are necessarily reconstructable for PMV or PDh, but only that the pattern of converting *CVC- bound forms to *CV- bound forms is, and that this pattern of truncated bound forms has been retained in at least some OP compounds, whether these are actually inherited or simply formulated on an observable conservative pattern. One possible hint that this pattern might be preserved in more recent forms by analogy is that I don't think that waz^iNga '(small) bird' would normally be expected to follow this pattern, though it does in waz^iNttu 'bluebird'. Perhaps in that case the truncation pattern has been over generalized? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 01:32:40 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:32:40 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) In OP, the word for 'pepper' is weo'kkihaN which seems to be formed from wa-i-u-kki-haN where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which attaches to the front to make ugu'-. I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order (wa)-i-kki-u-haN with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? Thanks, Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Nov 10 05:32:12 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:32:12 -0500 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, Hey. Just to be a bit anal about pronunciation, I'd transcribe 'pepper' as WiukihoN (popular orth.) or wiukkihaN (siouanist). wi vs. we as a pronunciation is a bit arguable as it is part of a glide here and as such is moving. It might be 'we' and the 'u' raises it to sound like 'wi'. 'We' is fine by me. The second vowel should definitely be 'u' and not 'o' because 'o' is a very limited phoneme in Omaha (only really on male endings - I mean enclitics). Cool etymology BTW! -Ardis PS Ok for more needless babbling on sounds, you could compare this to wiuga 'color' or 'crayon' which definitely sounds like /wiuga/ not /weuga/ but may well have developed from 'we' + 'uga' 'to dye/color.' We've always written wiuga as that is exactly how it sounds. There is always a question with writing how much historical to include versus how phonetically accurate to be. And always we make compromises. This comes up in class so much. I guess my test is that I leave it if I think it's going to help a second semester level student to form alot of new words or be able to break down a bunch of things easily in their heads but cut it if it is infrequent or unproductive or used on less common nouns/phrases. Also, I worry about how screwy it's going to make the pronunciation when read literally. (we try to get a feel for how much the Native Speaker breaks it down in their head.) And often the Elder instructor will say the word slowly a few times and they will make the decision (which is the BEST). So, in the end I like weukihoN and wiukihoN but veto weokihoN as it is less adequate phonetically (actual sounds) and phonologically (in relation to the sound system overall in Omaha). Now you see why I never write to the list. Everything gets carried away. Keep up the good work. Quoting Rory M Larson : > > > > > I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 > dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've > run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as > "Mixed Herbs", or > > mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ > mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) > > In OP, the word for 'pepper' is > > weo'kkihaN > > which seems to be formed from > > wa-i-u-kki-haN > > where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction > seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together > (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- > take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive > pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which > attaches to the front to make ugu'-. > > I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words > cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the > preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order > > (wa)-i-kki-u-haN > > with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. > > Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to > put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And > if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? > > Thanks, > Rory > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 13:28:47 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:28:47 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <6A18F274B62806FBEA7E9C1D@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Wally, Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? thanks, Michael On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Dave, > > There are two Northern Iroquoian verb roots meaning "big". The most > widespread one is -owaneN- (nasalized e) or something similar, which I > believe shows up in all the languages. It refers not only to size but also > to importance. Seneca has a second one, -steN-, that refers only to the > size of physical objects and occurs only with incorporated noun roots. It > may be limited to Seneca. It would be nice if the Cherokee t were a w, but > I guess it isn't. > > Wally > > > I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for > > "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to > > Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it > > from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean > > influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that > > Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what > > the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 10 15:56:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:56:46 -0600 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) Message-ID: You'd have a hard time convincing me that it's possible to relate -ka to demonstrative elements of any kind. Cognacy involves more than just resemblant syllables, and -ka cannot be said to have any real semantics. I don't even accept it fully as something we could label 'stative verb formative', although it cooccurs with some statives. Personally, I'd want to see specific active verb roots that have been "stativized" or that have clear stative counterparts, where -ka is the sole distinguishing factor. If the process was even once productive, there should be relic forms stashed somewhere. It may be possible to find them, but I don't recall ever running across any. I agree with John, of course, that there is a cline between word, clitic, affix and mere phoneme. Our article in the Word book ed. by Dixon and Aikhenvald goes into detail on that. But I see no relic evidence for including -ka of *htaNka in that. > One assumes that either this is some kind of stem-formant or alternatively, something easily lost. I tend to prefer the former explanation. If it is a stem-formant, a reasonable possibility is that it is *ka 'yon' acting more or less as a clause final marker and then absorbed into the verb. I recall that demonstratives sometimes become copulas in other language families, but I don't recall the examples. The ka-formant strikes me as something like that. *ihtaN ka => *htaNka big that it's big > Not all stative verbs have this formant where it occurs in some, but perhaps not all stative verbs have the same sort of origin. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 10 16:17:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:17:34 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Order of verb affixes Message-ID: Rory, For some odd reason our univ. server is marking all your postings as "SPAM". I can't figure why. Just a couple of observations on your 'boil with' or 'pepper' stems. I wonder if the u-/o- of *ohaN 'boil' is the locative prefix? It's entirely possible that it is/was but that it's become lexicalized with its root, of course. Etymologically it certainly had the /o/, but *o > u throughout in Omaha, of course, and in initial position in IO. So the question might be IS u- a prefix here, or WAS u- a prefix here -- but not any longer. Beyond that, in Dakotan the locative prefixes are mavericks in that they can occur at various points in the prefix string deriving new lexemes with each "move". This is covered in the paper on the Word in Siouan from the Dixon/Aikhenvald volume that John, John, Randy and I coauthored. In my experience there's no variability between [wi] and [we]. [we] is always a contraction of /wa- + i-/, 'noun formative plus instrumental'. I think that's what you're saying here. . . . Bob ********************************* Rory writes: I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) In OP, the word for 'pepper' is weo'kkihaN which seems to be formed from wa-i-u-kki-haN where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which attaches to the front to make ugu'-. I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order (wa)-i-kki-u-haN with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? Thanks, Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 17:00:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:57 -0600 Subject: *we-o- words (was: Order of verb affixes) In-Reply-To: <1100064732.4191a7dcb0b61@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Hey Ardis. It's great to hear from you! Yes, I've puzzled too about how to write that (originally) *we-o- sequence in Omaha. I think the problem is contained in the following basic facts and rules: 0) The original form is *we-o-. 1) *o => u in OP. 2) *e stays e in OP. 3) The two vowels in the *we-o- sequence have always been pronounced at the same level. Logically, something here has to break. My sense is that item 0) is a fact and rule 3) is hard. That makes it a fight between rules 1) and 2). I think that either there is variant pronunciation between weo- and wiu-, or that in the actual pronunciation in this case it is intermediate: something like a high weo- or a low wiu-. I know Dorsey must have struggled with this problem too, because in going through his dictionary word by word I discovered, to my great joy, that everything listed under weo- was listed yet again under wiu-. My own sense in listening to speakers on these words is that I can interpret the second vowel as something like a very high o sound, but I think it is really at a level intermediate between o and u. I haven't paid as much attention to the first syllable, which doesn't take the accent, but I think that one is probably intermediate between e and i as well. So I'm not entirely satisfied with any orthography for *we-o- words. It would be nice to have another set of vowels in the alphabet for sounds intermediate between e and i, and between o and u. I don't like the weu- spelling because it doesn't respect rule 3), which I think is a critical player here. I'm open to the wiu- spelling, which may be the closest approximation we can get to the actual pronunciation, but the problem I have with it is that it introduces a confusion for students by changing the spelling of the we- morpheme to wi- in this particular case. I know it took me a long time to realize that the wi- in wiu- verbs was the same thing as we- everywhere else. So I've been using weo- because that one respects rule 3), keeps the we- as we-, and reflects the historical origin. I don't like it either, but so far I've viewed it as the least of the three possible evils. So wiu'ga is the generic word for color? Great! We've been looking for that one! > Now you see why I never write to the list. Everything gets carried > away. Keep up the good work. You keep up the good work too. And please write in more often! The list is richer for your commentary. Regards, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 17:34:40 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:34:40 -0700 Subject: Ioway-Otoe-Missouria Dictionary (Re: Order of verb affixes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 > dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I believe these may still be available through the U of Colorado Dept. of Linguistics. It might take a while to get one, as the retail staff consists of David Rood or whoever he can get to volunteer instead. These are definitely worthwhile getting. There is absolutely nothing comparable out there if you work with IO or neighboring and related languages, or are interested in comparative Siouan. I've forgotten the price, and my information on that may be out of date anyway. It was based on the cost of getting the master xeroxed and bound. This is a two-inch thick labor of love compilation of existing slip files by Dorsey and Marsh and others integrated and extensively supplemented from Jimm Good Tracks extensive personal investigations. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 10 18:09:56 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:09:56 -0800 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael, -iyo- is interesting. It doesn't mean "big" in either Seneca or Mohawk, which Dave originally asked about, but rather something more like "good" or "nice", in various senses including nice-looking, well-behaved, etc. In Tuscarora, though, it means "big, great, beautiful", referring at least to some positive quality. Marianne suspects that the Proto-Northern-Iroquoian meaning might have been "big", and that the Tuscaroras extended it to "beautiful" through contact with the languages in the north, which had already replaced "big" with "good". That's certainly possible. These are all verb roots, by the way. Wally > Wally, > Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? > thanks, > Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 18:15:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:15:25 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > [IO] ... for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or > > mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ > mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) > > In OP, the word for 'pepper' is > > weo'kkihaN > > which seems to be formed from > > wa-i-u-kki-haN > I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words > cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the > preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order > > (wa)-i-kki-u-haN > > with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. > > Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to > put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And > if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? I think you are correct, except that from the presence of iro- ~ -iru-, which is the compound of the i and o locatives, I think that the IO structure may be slightly more complex: (wa)-i-khi-iro-haN The inflection and further derivation of compound locatives is messy in OP and I haven't a clue how it might work in IO or Winnebago. This is an area that hasn't been much looked into, I think. The same is true of the inflection of reflexives in those languages, though hints in the available dictionaries and sketch grammars suggest it may be complex. So, the repetition of i on both sides of khi may be part of the handling of khi with iro, and it is also quite possible - we'd have to check for hints in Whitman - that pronominals before khi all behave as if there were an inserted -i-. I actually think that might be the case, but it wouldn't account for the form ik(h)i'rohaN where nothing precedes the khi. Incidentally, I'm writing kh for aspirates and g for nonaspirates, just to emphasize the distinction, following a practice Bob Rankin suggested for the CSD, but JGT writes k and g, which would obviously be the preference in any practical orthography. As far as the OP forms, and looking ahead to Ardis's much appreciated comments, it is my impression that Dorsey writes we- for underlying wa-i- and wa-gi- sequences, but wiu- for underlying wa-i-u- sequences. I've always assumed there was some real phonetic basis for this, at least in the 1890s. I don't recall at the moment if I ever encountered a wiu- surface sequence personally. I did encounter we- when the i-locative was present by itself. As far as the inflection of i-u- compounds, the OP surface form for the historically underlying *iro- (Da iyo-, Wi hiro-, IO iro- ~ iru-) is udhu-, e.g., *udhukkihaN 'to cook for oneself by means of something'. An example that definitely occurs in this form would be udhuhe 'to follow by means of something (like tracks)' vs. uhe 'to follow (a path, etc.)'. When you add wa- (any kind) to udhu- you get wiu-, in Dorsey and Hahn anyway, i.e., the epenthetic -dh- disappears and the assimilation of i to u across it is undone. This is a fairly drammatic pattern of allomorphy, but it nicely demonstrates that udhu- is from *iro-. I think this alternation is a pan-Dhegiha pattern, i.e., an isogloss that would mark a Siouan language as one of the Dhegiha group. What I find interesting here is that it appears that the compound locatives *iro- and *ira- were already part of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan morphology. I don't know if the semantics of these forms have ever been systematically investigated in any of the languages, let alone comparatively. I have a rough notion of OP udhu- as 'through, along', but in many specific cases the 'by means of' sense of the outer i- is more or less evident, and I suspect that the 'through, along' idea is a spurious consequence of looking at common English equivalents of udhu-forms, as opposed to looking at the underlying morphology and how the forms are used in clauses. In line with Bob's remarks on whether *o- in 'cook' is a locative, I seem to recall that in some Dakotan o-verbs there are morphological anomalies that suggest o is not the locative. I can't remember if the relevant example was 'cook' or 'help'. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 18:28:41 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:28:41 -0500 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: <3B45E9E1FACB4681256D1925@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Michael, > > -iyo- is interesting. It doesn't mean "big" in either Seneca or Mohawk, > which Dave originally asked about, but rather something more like "good" or > "nice", in various senses including nice-looking, well-behaved, etc. In > Tuscarora, though, it means "big, great, beautiful", referring at least to > some positive quality. Marianne suspects that the Proto-Northern-Iroquoian > meaning might have been "big", and that the Tuscaroras extended it to > "beautiful" through contact with the languages in the north, which had > already replaced "big" with "good". Wally, It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. Thanks, Michael That's certainly possible. These are > all verb roots, by the way. > > Wally > > > Wally, > > Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? > > thanks, > > Michael > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 18:36:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:36:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just one more follow up here. The relative order of pronominals and locatives in MV Siouan languages differs extensively. The Dakota pattern is only generically similar to what occurs in Dhegiha or Chiwere or Winnebago. For example, aN(g)-, the "agent" inclusive pronominal in OP, precedes the a-locative and u-locative, but follows the i-locative. The surface forms are aNg-a-, aNg-u- and aN-dh-aN- < *i-r-aN-. On the other hand wa-, the "patient" inclusive pronominal, precedes the a-locative and i-locative, and follows the u-locative: wa'-, we'-, uwa'-. This oddity is mitigated, but in no way simplfied, when one realizes that the wa following u is actually secondary. Historically *wa-o- > *wo- and that form is reduced to u'- in OP and it is often difficult to distinguish this u'- from u- not incorporating a hidden wa- once the inflecting starts and the dust rises. But some verbs - I'm not quite able to characterize which except by listing them - insert a "new" or "pleonastic" wa after u. I think this usually occurs with human objects. In addition, I've noticed that in OP things like reflexives sometimes get inserted not in some template-determined location, but simply at the front of whatever is "already" (lexically) present. I'd have to track down the examples, though I once used them in a SACC paper. I can't remember if we used these examples in the 'Word' paper, but they certainly entered into our thinking for it. In a lot of Siouan morphological situations it looks to me like "point of insertion" is less determined by a mental slot map than by a sort of enzyme-like consideration. If an X is to be added, we look at the shape of plug the X has and then stick it in the first (or all) sockets where that plug would fit, and failing such a socket we pile it in front of the form. I'm not sure this metaphor helps all that much, since the nature of what constitutes a socket is not made particularly clear. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 19:06:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:06:37 -0700 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E5E@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > You'd have a hard time convincing me that it's possible to relate -ka to > demonstrative elements of any kind. Cognacy involves more than just > resemblant syllables, and -ka cannot be said to have any real semantics. The argument is more syntactic than semantic. Nothing about the semantics of the forms argues for -ka < ka DEM, I agree. > I don't even accept it fully as something we could label 'stative verb > formative', although it cooccurs with some statives. Personally, I'd > want to see specific active verb roots that have been "stativized" or > that have clear stative counterparts, where -ka is the sole > distinguishing factor. If the process was even once productive, there > should be relic forms stashed somewhere. It may be possible to find > them, but I don't recall ever running across any. I would argue that the -ka formative was not added to a non-stative verb to stativize it, but sometimes appears with things that were once simply adjectives, because those forms often occurred in syntactic contexts (predications) where a predicative ka followed them. Thus the only relicts of ka-less forms are the reflexes of these stems in languages where the stems lack -ka. The forms with -ka have it as a relict of ocurring before (enclitic?) predicator ka in predicative contexts, while the forms without -ka reflect the original stem preserved from non-predicative contexts or simply not having picked up the ka attachment from those contexts where it co-ocurred. It's even possible that the hypothetical predicative ka didn't occur in the dialects of PS that lead to the languages in which the ka-less forms occur. I think forms lacking ka are not random, but occur consistently in certain languages, e.g., Winnebago. Obviously there's some sort of reanalysis involved. The ka goes from being a functional mark of predication next to an adjective in a predicate to being part of a predicating stative verb. There might well have been other kinds of stative verbs around already to facilitate the reanalysis. Putting it another way, the -ka is picked up like a burr from a context where burrs occur as result of frequenting that context, rather than added derivationally to create a certain result. I suppose the distinction is a bit moot. You could call it a derivational suffix for forming statives from adjectives if you classed the underlying stems as adjectives. On the other hand there are no surface adjectives in the Siouan languages where -ka is a formant. Or anywhere else in Siouan as far as I am aware. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 19:15:15 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:15:15 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E5F@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob, Sorry about upsetting your server. I have no idea why either. Maybe it doesn't like Lotus Notes? Thanks for your feedback, though actually I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying at a couple of critical points. > Just a couple of observations on your 'boil with' or 'pepper' stems. I > wonder if the u-/o- of *ohaN 'boil' is the locative prefix? It's > entirely possible that it is/was but that it's become lexicalized with > its root, of course. Etymologically it certainly had the /o/, but *o > > u throughout in Omaha, of course, and in initial position in IO. So the > question might be IS u- a prefix here, or WAS u- a prefix here -- but > not any longer. I don't know about IO, but to the best of my knowledge pretty much all verbs that begin with u- in OP are formed from the locative prefix u- < *o-, meaning 'in', 'into' or 'in the context' of something, plus the root. All affixed pronouns are attached to the root except for 'we', aN(g)-, which goes to the front of the u-, turning the whole prefix into ugu-, with the aNg- < *uNk- denasalized. Otherwise, the initial u- is unaffected except for being nasalized by a following nasal vowel across an epenthetic [w]. Thus, for uhaN', 'boil' or 'cook', we have: uhaN' < u-haN s/he cooks it ua'haN < u-a-haN I cook it udha'haN < u-dha-haN you cook it ugu'haN < aNg-u-haN we cook it aNwaN'haN < u-aN-haN s/he cooks me udhi'haN < u-dhi-haN s/he cooks you uwi'haN < u-wi-haN I cook you uwa'haN < u-wa-haN s/he cooks us/them (animate) (This one is homophonic with ua'haN.) This pattern seems to be very regular with OP u- verbs, and I assume this u- is always the locative prefix. So u-haN' presumably means/meant "cook in (a kettle, paunch or something)". But maybe the form has been lexicalized in IO, so that inflection always comes at the front. Does anyone know if this is the case with IO u- < *o- verbs? > Beyond that, in Dakotan the locative prefixes are mavericks in that they > can occur at various points in the prefix string deriving new lexemes > with each "move". This is covered in the paper on the Word in Siouan > from the Dixon/Aikhenvald volume that John, John, Randy and I > coauthored. So Dakotan is variable in affix order, hmm? In general, I don't think that OP is. But maybe IO is also variable? > In my experience there's no variability between [wi] and [we]. [we] is > always a contraction of /wa- + i-/, 'noun formative plus instrumental'. > I think that's what you're saying here. . . . I think so. I guess we may be getting confused between the morpheme [we-] < [wa-] + [i-], and the question of how to pronounce that morpheme when it precedes u- < *o-. So when I come across a verb written wiu- in OP, that is morphologically the same thing as [we-] + [u-], correct? Thanks! Rory From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 10 20:19:06 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:19:06 -0800 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael, You probably know that Ohio comes from a Seneca word, Ohi:yo?, which is currently the name of both a river and the Allegany Reservation. The river includes what we call the Allegany (Allegheny in PA) and its continuation as the Ohio. The name has the -iyo- verb root preceded by a noun root meaning "river", which shows up here as simply h. I'm not sure what you mean by the name being probably quite ancient; I don't know how to tell how long the Senecas have been using it. To them today it certainly means something like "good river" (maybe in the sense of how it looks, belle riviere), not "big river". Wally > It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym > "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI > sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" > certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 21:01:30 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:01:30 -0500 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What I mean, Wally, is that the hydronym probably dates to the time when -iyo- meant 'big' in Iroquoian, cross-family cognate with say Miami-Illinois /mihsisiipiiwi/. Michael On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Michael, > > You probably know that Ohio comes from a Seneca word, Ohi:yo?, which is > currently the name of both a river and the Allegany Reservation. The river > includes what we call the Allegany (Allegheny in PA) and its continuation > as the Ohio. The name has the -iyo- verb root preceded by a noun root > meaning "river", which shows up here as simply h. I'm not sure what you > mean by the name being probably quite ancient; I don't know how to tell how > long the Senecas have been using it. To them today it certainly means > something like "good river" (maybe in the sense of how it looks, belle > riviere), not "big river". > > Wally > > > It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym > > "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI > > sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" > > certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 23:08:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:08:34 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't know about IO, but to the best of my knowledge pretty > much all verbs that begin with u- in OP are formed from the > locative prefix u- < *o-, meaning 'in', 'into' or 'in the context' > of something, plus the root. I think the idea is that once there was a Proto-Siouan prefix *o- 'in' with, hypothetically, the Proto-Siouan morphosyntax (morpheme order): INCLUSIVE-o-PRO-STEM then any verb with a stem starting with *o for other reasons was in danger of being reinterpreted as having that o-locative prefix present, even if the morphosyntax was also different, maybe something like: INCLUSIVE-PRO-o... Imagine that 'cook' was historically just a simple root *ohaN in which of was just an "organic" part of the root. Naturally, once it was reanalyzed as being o 'in' + haN 'cook, boil', it would be easy to take the o 'in' part as referring to the cooking vessel, even if it didn't originally. I can think of several kinds of evidence for this having happened: 1) Some Siouan language retaining the original morphosyntax or something otherwise differing in behavior from the locative pattern in that language. 2) The discovery of forms from outside Siouan that argued for a non-locative origin, e.g., cognates from Catawba or further afield with a shape that argued for PS *ohaN being unitary. They might not start with o, of course, but they should be regularly cognate with *ohaN and not merely *haN. 3) We might wonder about verbs with locative *o that have no semantic need of a locative. Of course, forms like this are not a very strong argument. Maybe we just don't understand their logic! An example parallel with this involves Eskimoan final -p, -t, -k, and -q in nouns. These are the only final stops in most Eastern Eskimoan languages. I think there are some c^ finals in Western Eskimo. A -p is the regular ergative case ending, and -t and -k are the plural and dual endings for the absolutive and ergative cases. Final -q is apparently free of underlying meaning in nouns, but there is a strong tendency to interpret it as the absolutive singular, and to add it as such where it was not historically present or delete it where it belongs but seems to break the pattern. In addition, nouns that underlyingly end in p, k or t are somewhat problematic because the unmarked absolutive form tends to look like an ergative, dual, or plural. These nouns tend to be manhandled in some way to avoid the obscuring of the paradigmatic pattern - deletion of the final consonant, addition of additional elements meaningful or more or less arbitrary, etc. I could probably track down examples if these are required, though it has been a long time since I was at all familiar with the data. I think the examples I noticed occurred with forms cognate with Greenlandic kimmik 'dog' and nanuq 'bear'. I don't remember any nouns ending in p or t off hand, but there may be some. These latter cases, where final p, k or t look like they do something that they don't and get handled as such willy-nilly are the parallels for any Siouan cases where initial *o not a locative has been made into a locative to preserve the pattern. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 00:23:35 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:23:35 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I can think of several kinds of evidence for this having happened: I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know if this has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this point asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might suggest it. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Nov 11 15:22:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:22:00 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes Message-ID: > I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know if this > has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this point > asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of > anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might suggest it. Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the language(s) then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for its putative status as a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an *ahaN or a *ihaN, then the reinforcement would be there and o- could be "seen" by children acquiring the language as a productive prefix. B. From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Nov 11 22:50:43 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:50:43 -0500 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <010d01c4c802$321ae650$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I really doubt that the u- is a locative. I believe it derives from wa based on other evidence. UhoN is one of the verbs does not vary for wa but is used as both an activity 'I am cooking' and an active accomplishment 'I cooked it.' The other verbs which have this variation and don't take wa often (always? I don't have my paper on this right now) are u-verbs. THus, u is functioning as the wa activity marker there. Synchronically, wiu is more phonetically accurate than weo and at least as accurate as wio. I'm not sure what advantages the student obtains by writing -o- in such words. I can't see any. And, it would mess up the general phonological patterning of -o- in Modern Omaha. O never occurs word medially or initially. It's only in the male greeting Aho and in the male illocutionary force enclitic -ho. So, from a synchronic standpoint, I can't see writing it with -o-. But I think that's essentially the debate here synchronic vs. diachronic representation. And that's I think beyond the list. It's like functional vs. formal. I actually just meant to send the original orthography comment to Rory off-list. I mess that up all the time. Sorry for mailbox clutter. -Ardis Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know > if this > > has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this > point > > asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of > > anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might > suggest it. > > Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the > language(s) > then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for its > putative status as > a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an *ahaN or a *ihaN, > then the > reinforcement would be there and o- could be "seen" by children > acquiring the > language as a productive prefix. > > B. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 23:13:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:13:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <1100213443.4193ecc330f44@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > I actually just meant to send the original orthography comment to Rory > off-list. ... Sorry for mailbox clutter. Well, I'm grateful for the mistake. Please clutter as often as you like. Incidentally I agree that one doesn't need o in Omaha-Ponca to write anything but the male ending, even that is just influence from English as to how to write au. Of course, au is rare, essentially restricted to this context, and there's no harm in treating it specially. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 23:37:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:37:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <010d01c4c802$321ae650$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the > language(s) then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for > its putative status as a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an > *ahaN or a *ihaN, then the reinforcement would be there and o- could be > "seen" by children acquiring the language as a productive prefix. I've looked up the CSD set for 'boil, cook': Cr bulu'a Hi mi'rua; also ua 'make fire' PCH *-u'a < **-u'ha (prefix looks like *pr in PMV terms, or maybe *pVr-, *wVr-; the vowel is predictable and is what happens in the first person of r-stems, too) Da o..haN' OP u'haN Ks ohaN Os o'haN Qu ohaN IO uuhaN Wi hohaN PMV o'haN Bi *haaN Tu *hiiehaa I'm not aware of any derivatives of underlying haN using other locatives, but I haven't gone looking very far. I can't find anything on anomalous o-initial forms in Dakotan that matches what I remembered. There is the business that some Dakotan forms occur with two o-locatives, and one of these is oo'he 'a boiling, enough to boil at once' (Buechel). I make 'enough to boil at once' out as 'a kettle-full' or 'a pot-full'. The -aN > -e is because this is nominalized. This occurs in Oo'henuNpa 'Two Kettles' the name of one of the Teton subdivisions. It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is part of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat it as a locative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 00:06:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:06:20 -0700 Subject: Other -kV Elements Message-ID: It occurred to me that there is another -kV element that I'd like to distinguish from any "stative formant -ka." This occurs (or is missing) in the verb *o...rak(e) 'to tell', as in Dakota o...yaka, OP u...dha, Os o...dhake, Ks o...yage, Qu o...dake, IO u...rage, Wi ho...rak. Similar forms exist in Southeastern. I have no idea why Omaha-Ponca loses the final *-ge expected, but I don't think it has anything to do with *-ka. Between *-ka, *-k + varying *e/*a, truncations of final *-CV including *-kV to make diminutives, truncations unexplained as in 'tell', loss of final *e in Winnebago, and the shift of final *a to *e after velars in IO and Winnbago it can be a bit difficult to sort out final *-kV sequences in Siouan, though I think everything is consistent and works. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Nov 12 15:54:29 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:54:29 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is part > of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat it as a > locative. Thanks for looking this up, John, and thanks to Bob and Ardis for their comments. So to summarize, it appears that the proto MVS verb *ohaN, 'to cook', may be a unitary lexical item in which the initial *o- is part of the root rather than the locative prefix *o-. In OP and many or all of the present MVS languages, however, the initial *o- has been (re)analyzed as the locative prefix *o- such that affixed pronouns in OP are generally inserted between the *o- (u-) and the -haN, so that OP uhaN' conjugates in the same way as any other (locative prefix) u- verb. This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still recognized as a unitary root? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri Nov 12 17:35:14 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:35:14 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes Message-ID: I notice in John's recap of the Comparative Dict. entry, that we recorded uuhaN in IO. I wonder if this isn't a reflex of the *wo- prefix Ardis was discussing. It would come out [u-] or possibly [uu] in Omaha, of course and would ultimately be from *wa+o-. Would there be a phonological difference between reflexes of *o- and *wo- in Omaha? Other than probably initial syllable accent, that is? 'Pepper' is a noun and it seems to me ought to have had the initial *wa-. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:54 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Order of verb affixes John wrote: > It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is > part of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat > it as a locative. Thanks for looking this up, John, and thanks to Bob and Ardis for their comments. So to summarize, it appears that the proto MVS verb *ohaN, 'to cook', may be a unitary lexical item in which the initial *o- is part of the root rather than the locative prefix *o-. In OP and many or all of the present MVS languages, however, the initial *o- has been (re)analyzed as the locative prefix *o- such that affixed pronouns in OP are generally inserted between the *o- (u-) and the -haN, so that OP uhaN' conjugates in the same way as any other (locative prefix) u- verb. This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still recognized as a unitary root? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:11:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:11:24 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E61@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I notice in John's recap of the Comparative Dict. entry, that we > recorded uuhaN in IO. The form was from a source coded RR (Bob) and actually written uh. > I wonder if this isn't a reflex of the *wo- prefix Ardis was discussing. > It would come out [u-] or possibly [uu] in Omaha, of course and would > ultimately be from *wa+o-. I wondered about this issue myself. Of course, I don't know how *wo- (I guess *woo'-, really) comes out in IO. I'm confident that it comes out *oo'- in Dhegiha. Winnebago has woo-, but I wonder if it doesn't also have hoo- and if the woo- forms aren't secondary, with w restored. > Would there be a phonological difference between reflexes of *o- and > *wo- in Omaha? Other than probably initial syllable accent, that is? There aren't any reflexes of *wo(o)- in Omaha-Ponca other than u(u)'- as far as I know. That is, there are no instances of wo- or wu-. It is true, as Ardis and I have pointed out, that some u- (*o-) verbs have wa in the third person plural. All nominalizations have u(u)'- with initial stress. The parallelism of these forms with the wa(a)'- and we(e)'- nominalizations is the bulk of the evidence for PMV *woo- > PDH *oo- > OP u(u)'-. The rest of it is the alternation between accentuation and non-accentuation of u in certain paradigms. Note that paradigms that have u'- in the third plural also have aN'gu- in the inclusive, i.e., wa-u- appears as u'- and wa-aNg-u- appears as aN'gu-. So I assume *wa-uN(k)- develops in parallel with *wa-o-. In essence, Omaha-Ponca speakers use a rule whereby accent shifting is an allomorph of wa- with the u-locative forms. Since wa- causes accent shifting in other locative paradigms where it isn't lost, this is not so weird as it seems. Of course, I don't claim that speakers are necessarily aware of this in conscious way. They just know how to manipulate the patterns. Since some verbs do have a "secondary" or innovated wa-, inserted after the u-, I would guess that the wa-u- > u'- pattern is actually is not perfectly transparent. > 'Pepper' is a noun and it seems to me ought to have had the initial > *wa-. That's true, though I don't think that all nominalizations have wa- and so I'm not sure that wa- is a marker of nominalization per se. I think, however, that this is the kind of nominalization that would be expected to have wa-, one in which a non-agent is the head. Notice also that the IO forms include the possibility of a wa-, as well as of an independent "oblique of means" reference. The structure is something like 'that/the herb with which one cooks things'. We haven't said so yet, but I assume all of us are taking the position that these two forms, OP and IO, are more or less exactly parallel in construction because speakers have calqued one from the other (or both from a third form in another language). The forms are then cognate in their constituents because the two languages are so close, or because of that plus some informal recognition of the equivalence or similarity of morphemes. This latter factor would apply if one was calqued from the other and the resulting construction were not quite idiomatic in the target languages. Foe example, in English you can say for effect things like "wrath incarnate" using what I take to be a French order of constituents. (At this point there doesn't need to be a French model for the construction, of course.) I don't think there's any evidence of non-idiomaticity in 'pepper' of course. I suppose one could also argue that the terms for 'pepper' in question were existing, inherited, forms for 'flavoring agent' which have been specialized or reassigned to refer to pepper. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:19:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:19:09 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word > for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except > that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN > rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean > that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in > other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO > preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still > recognized as a unitary root? Bear in mind that this is an udhu-form in OP, or the analogous iru-form in IO, not a simple u-form, so the rules are somewhat different than they are for simple locatives. I haven't looked to see if I can find other instances of iru- + reflexive ordering in IO, and I don't have any way to locate a full paradigm for such forms. However, in general IO (and Wi) morphosyntax is pretty close to OP and other languages. First and second person follow locatives; inclusive precede. I think only Dhegiha ever places the agent inclusive aN(g) (or any other inclusives) after the i-locative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:34:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:34:04 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) Message-ID: John McLaughlin has kindly provided the following discussion of Numic terms for 'head', which he has allowed me to post to the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:45:27 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Numic Query Hi, John; Read the Listserv stuff. Here's my reply: The Shoshoni phonemic system does not contain nasalized vowels and /mp/ is phonetically [mb]. Initially, /p/ is unaspirated [p], so the Idaho State spelling system (Loether and Gould) spells the word for 'head, hair' . In the Western Shoshoni system (Miller), it is spelled . Phonetically, final unstressed vowels are devoiced and the devoicing proceeds leftward through the preceding consonants, so /pampi/ in isolation (as a name would be) comes out as [pambi], [pampI], or [paMPI]. Obviously, nineteenth century Anglos didn't recognize final voiceless vowels as anything more than the release of the stop, so nineteenth century recordings of Shoshoni include , (with possessive pronoun prefixed), , , (with 'black' prefixed), , , (with possessive pronoun prefixed). Note, however, that there is no evidence for the loss of the nasal (it's reconstructible) before the stop in Shoshoni. However, in Comanche, the nasal has been lost before the stop and the stop devoiced. How these facts explain 'Pomp/Pompey' is not within my ken, but Clark's not recording a nasal before the stop in /yampa/ and /aniipampi/ (beaverhead) is interesting. It could reflect either Comanche or Southern Ute influence. Both of these languages have lost the nasals before stops so the cognates for Shoshoni /pampi/ and /yampa/ 'wild carrot' are Comanche [papI], [yapA] (reflecting my /papi/ and /yapa/ and Charney's /pa=pi/, /ya=pa/) and So Ute [papI], [yapA] (reflecting /pappi/ and /yappa/, Southern Paiute /pampi/ and /yampa/). The problem, obviously, is that it's unlikely that Clark encountered either Comanches or Utes during his trip and the placename is not in Ute or Comanche country I assume. Interesting problem. I wonder how much Sacajawea's Shoshoni had degraded while in Hidatsa country and whether the Shoshoni nasal-stop clusters might be misrecorded after passing through Hidatsa and French. Hmmmm. John E. McLaughlin, PhD Associate Professor English Dept 3200 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-3200 (435) 797-2738 (voice-office) (435) 723-0847 (voice-home) (435) 797-3797 (fax) mclasutt at brigham.net Program Director USU On-Line Linguistics english.usu.edu/lingnet -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:28 PM To: mclasutt at brigham.net Subject: Numic Query John: I wonder if you'd be interested in answering some questions on Numic matters that have come up on the Siouan List? It concerns the possibility that "Pompey" or "Pomp" as the name for Sacagawea's son a/k/a Jean Baptiste might have a Numic origin, or, for that matter, that it might be a variant on Baptiste. I'm sorry - this is probably the most predictable and least interesting question a Numicist can be asked! After possible etymologies for Sacagawea, anyway. I can provide you with the specific posts that led to me thinking of you, or you can find them by searching or browsing at http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. If searching, try Sacagawea or Pompey. If browsing, try the end of October, start of November 2004. Thanks one way or another! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Nov 12 20:16:22 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:16:22 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Thanks for sharing John McLaughlin's detailed and helpful discussion (and to him for writing it). > there is no evidence for the loss of the nasal (it's > reconstructible) before the stop in Shoshoni. However, in Comanche, the > nasal has been lost before the stop and the stop devoiced. How these > facts explain 'Pomp/Pompey' is not within my ken, but Clark's not > recording a nasal before the stop in /yampa/ and /aniipampi/ (beaverhead) > is interesting. It could reflect either Comanche or Southern Ute > influence. Both of these languages have lost the nasals before stops so > the cognates for Shoshoni /pampi/ and /yampa/ 'wild carrot' are Comanche > [papI], [yapA] (reflecting my /papi/ and /yapa/ and Charney's /pa=pi/, > /ya=pa/) and So Ute [papI], [yapA] (reflecting /pappi/ and /yappa/, > Southern Paiute /pampi/ and /yampa/). The problem, obviously, is that > it's unlikely that Clark encountered either Comanches or Utes during his > trip and the placename is not in Ute or Comanche country I assume. Seems to me the simplest explanation is that Clark's record *is* from an obsolete Shoshoni dialect. (His transcriptions are, after all, probably the earliest on record of Eastern or Northern Shoshoni.) This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Comanche language is an historically recent offshoot from Shoshoni: -mp- > -p- may be a feature that Comanche shared with a now extinct Shoshoni dialect recorded by Clark. Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Nov 12 23:01:27 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:01:27 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question Message-ID: I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Nov 12 23:35:31 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:35:31 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John M., Thanks for all the additional background, especially on the timing of he loss of the nasal in Comanche. (That doesn't, of course, preclude the existence of an archaic Shoshoni dialect with the same loss.) > I just looked up "Beaverhead Valley" in > Bill Bright's Glossary of L&C names in Names (2004, 52:163-237) and it is in > Montana, predating Sacajawea's meeting of other Shoshoni speakers. It's > listed as Har na hap pap chah with a note "also called ". > The alternate name reflects actual Shoshoni /hani/ 'beaver' and /pampi/ > 'head', and may reflect Sacajawea's usage AFTER speaking to her relatives in > Idaho and remembering "proper" Shoshoni (assuming that Hane-pompy-hah is > recorded by L&C). "Hane-pompy-hah" wasn't recorded by L&C: it's from Moulton's footnote on p. 176 of vol. 8 of his edition of the Journals where it's given as the suggested Shoshoni original for "Har na Hap pap Chah" (citing an earlier paper by Rees). "Har na Hap pap Chah" was recorded on the expedition's second passage through western Montana, in 1806, months after they met the Shoshoni. The passage from Clark (8.175; 10 July 1806) reads: "proceeded..into that butifull and extensive Vally open and fertile which we Call the beaver head Vally which is the Indian name[,] in their language Har na Hap pap Chah. from the No. of those animals in it & a pt. of land resembling the head of one" > The form with seems to reflect Sacajawea's > pre-Idaho speech, not that of any other Shoshoni at the time. It would be > interesting to see if there are Shoshoni forms recorded by L&C after > Sacajawea spoke with other Shoshonis in Idaho. The word for 'yampa' was, like "Har na Hap pap Chah," also recorded in 1806. The passage from Clark (7.270; 18 May 1806): "The Squar wife to Shabono busied her Self gathering the roots of the fenel Called by the Snake Indians Year pah for the purpose of drying to eate on the Rocky mountains." These seem pretty suggestive of a nasal-dropping Shoshoni dialect. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 01:05:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:05:22 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) Message-ID: Additional comments from John. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:58:53 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Numic Query Here's a reply I sent to Alan Hartley. I tried to send it to "reply all", but I'm not on the list and it only went to Alan. Would you post it on the list for me? Thanks Actually, the earliest records of Comanche in 1786 show that the nasal-stop clusters were still firmly in place decades after they had left their Eastern Shoshoni relatives. Clearly diagnostic forms such as /enka/ 'red', /tympi/ [y is a high back unrounded vowel] 'rock', /nampe/ 'foot', and /-kanty/ 'have' show these clusters still in evidence in the language at that time (modern /eka/, /typi/, /nape/, /-katy/). Even as late as 1828 (the next Comanche data), many words still have nasal-stop clusters. It was not until 1868 recordings that we see no more trace of nasal-stop clusters. I discuss this at length in John E. McLaughlin, 2000, "Language Boundaries and Phonological Borrowing in the Central Numic Languages," Uto-Aztecan: Structural, Temporal, and Geographic Perspectives; ed. Eugene H. Casad & Thomas L. Willet; Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora; pp. 293-303. In that article, I show that the loss of nasal-stop clusters was borrowed into Comanche from neighboring Ute dialects AFTER they arrived on the South Plains. It was not inherited from Eastern Shoshoni. If Sacagawea was the source for the Shoshoni words recorded by Clark with nasal-stop clusters, it seems that interference from Hidatsa and French may have reshaped her personal nasal-stop clusters into nasalized vowel followed by stop. These forms were recorded by Clark before Sacajawea met her relatives in Idaho, so I assume Hidatsa/French influence. When she spoke then with other Shoshoni in Idaho, she was able to refresh her knowledge of Shoshoni through actual use. Obviously, this is just informed speculation. Here are the facts: Comanche lost its nasal-stop clusters about 150 years after they moved onto the South Plains. There is no evidence (except for Clark's recordings of Sacajawea) for the loss of nasal-stop clusters in any dialect of any other Central Numic language. Actually, I just looked up "Beaverhead Valley" in Bill Bright's Glossary of L&C names in Names (2004, 52:163-237) and it is in Montana, predating Sacajawea's meeting of other Shoshoni speakers. It's listed as Har na hap pap chah with a note "also called ". The alternate name reflects actual Shoshoni /hani/ 'beaver' and /pampi/ 'head', and may reflect Sacajawea's usage AFTER speaking to her relatives in Idaho and remembering "proper" Shoshoni (assuming that Hane-pompy-hah is recorded by L&C). The form with seems to reflect Sacajawea's pre-Idaho speech, not that of any other Shoshoni at the time. It would be interesting to see if there are Shoshoni forms recorded by L&C after Sacajawea spoke with other Shoshonis in Idaho. John E. McLaughlin, PhD Associate Professor English Dept 3200 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-3200 (435) 797-2738 (voice-office) (435) 723-0847 (voice-home) (435) 797-3797 (fax) mclasutt at brigham.net Program Director USU On-Line Linguistics english.usu.edu/lingnet From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Nov 13 01:23:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:23:00 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: RE: Numic Query (fwd)] Message-ID: At John M.'s request-- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Numic Query (fwd) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:42:49 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Alan H. Hartley Maybe we can arm-wrestle and settle the matter :) If there were another nasal-dropping Central Numic dialect, these two words are the only evidence of it. Since Sacajawea lived so long with people who didn't have nasal-stop clusters, but had nasal vowels instead (Hidatsa and French), language interference on her part just seems more likely to me. Anyway, that's the evidence and we've probably said and done about all we can do or say about it. Cheers to you Siouanists. Remember, all your tribes' horses were at one point stolen out of Mexico by a Comanche! Uto-Aztecanists rule :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 01:42:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:42:03 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Before we go very far with the lost dialect theory of nasal dropping, it might be worth noting the particular status of nasals in Hidatsa. It's true that Siouan languages typically have nasal vowels, but Crow and Hidatsa do not. In the modern languages the contrast between PS nasal and oral vowels is neutralized in favor of orality. In such a situation, a form like CVNCV would not contrast with CVCV or might occur in free variation with it. Perhaps the unnasalized Shoshone forms represent the influence of Hidatsa on Sacagawea's speech. Note that there's a pretty strong tendency for VNC to be pronounced with an intrusive nasal stop in at least Omaha-Ponca. I'm not sure how far that tendency occurs in other languages. There are nasal segments in modern Crow and Hidatsa, but these are not usually depicted as contrastive. As far as I can recall the rules they are, for Crow /w/ (to use Kaschube's notation), b when simple and non-final, m when final and mm when geminate. For Crow /r/ (Kaschube again), d initially, l medially, n finally, and nn in geminates. Of course the change in the scheme of writing /w/ and /r/ are not the only differences between Kaschube's system and the current popular orthography. The popular scheme is close to the auditory quality of the sounds to English ears. The rules for Hidatsa, again by recollection, are that /w/ and /r/ are pronounced (and often written) as m and n in initial position. The distribution of nasality in Mandan, so closely associated today with Hidatsa is somewhat different. Kennard depicts something more or less comparable to Dakota, but Hollow concluded that w and r have the allophones m and n before nasal vowels and decided in the spirit of the time to write w and r in those cases, too, since the nasality of m and n was conditioned. Kaufman argued in his unpublished work on Proto-Siouan (which I know only from some summary sheets discussed in a class conducted by David Rood) that nasal stops were also conditioned entirely by nasal vowels in Tutelo and Winnebago. I don't really know of any counter arguments to either claim. In most other Siouan languages the situation is either that a few anomalous forms seem to have nasal stops where no nasal vowel is present, e.g., mi 'sun' in IO (not sure of this), or not to have nasal stops when one is, e.g., Da wiNyaN 'woman'. Sometimes nasals also arise regularly from other sources, e.g., OP has m and n for *W and *R (not *w and *r) whether or not the following vowel is nasal, e.g., ine'gi 'uncle' cf. Teton Da leks^i' 'uncle'. To the extent that Siouan languages lack nasal stops and have m n etc. only where an adjacent nasal vowel acts upon w r etc. it is natural that the loss of nasalization in vowels in Crow and Hidatsa would allow a new distribution of nasality to unfold. I believe that the distribution or occurence of nasal stops is anomalous in Plains Algonquian, but I don't know the details. It sounds like loss of nasals might be "in the air" in the Plains, if it affects Comanche, too. In early transcriptions of Crow and Hidatsa b m etc. and d l n etc. often seem to be in free alternations. Washington Matthews more or less systematized his Hidatsa usage, but he comments on the difficulties. Randy Graczyk presented a paper a number of years ago in which he looked at the freely varying forms in older transcriptions and concluded that - for Crow, anyway - there was some tendency for #mV and #nV to occur where the following vowel was nasal in cognates elsewhere in Siouan, and, conversely, for #bV and #dV to occur where it was nasal. He hypothesized that vowel nasality was in the process of being lost in the early contact period. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Nov 13 15:24:39 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:24:39 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I wonder if you'd be interested in answering some questions on Numic > matters that have come up on the Siouan List? It concerns the possibility > that "Pompey" or "Pomp" as the name for Sacagawea's son a/k/a Jean > Baptiste might have a Numic origin, or, for that matter, that it might be > a variant on Baptiste. In the interesting discussion of disappearing Shoshoni dialects and Hidatsa interference with Sacagawea's Sh. pronunciation, I lost sight of my original suggestion, which is that "Pomp" is from (Anglo-American) "Pompey" rather than from Sh. pampi 'head.' Whether Sacagawea's pronunciation was idiolectic or dialectic, the fact is that she apparently didn't pronounce the -m-, and if she didn't pronounce the -m-, it's unlikely she would have named her son "Pomp" (rather than, say, "Pop"). As to Shoshoni dialect, John M. pointed out that Clark's Sh. words were more likely to be accurately recorded AFTER the expedition encountered the Shoshoni people en masse, and both Sh. words under discussion are attested from that later period. The explanation that these forms represent otherwise undocumented Sh. dialect pronunciations has the Occamic advantage of being simpler (given the present state of our knowledge) than the one positing a likewise undocumented phonetic interference between Sacagawea's Hidatsa superstrate and her Sh. substrate. We don't have enough data so far to choose between the idiolect and dialect explanations of Sacagawea's pronunciation, but I think we do have enough to say that Pomp = Pompey. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 19:32:21 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:32:21 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? The only think I could think of was that maybe the l was a misreading of an apostrophe. The dot or accent seems to be missing from the s. Of course, I don't know the context in which the form occurred which led to the inquiry. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 20:43:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:43:41 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs Message-ID: Here's the inflectional pattern for u-verbs in Omaha Ponca: ua'ne 'I seek it' 90:17.6 udha'ne 'you seek him' 90:283.4 una'=bi=ama 'he sought him' 90:265.18 aNgu'na=i 'we seek him' 90:385.19 u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 u'ne maNdhiN ama 'he was seeking them' 90:561.11 u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 The references are to Dorsey, of course. I tried to stick with the stem u...ne' 'to seek, hunt (for)', but had to slip in some from u...ttaN' 'to put on shoes' and u...gi'ttaN 'to put on one's own shoes'. I've included one anomalous 'I > them' form that is probably an 'I > it' form or misrecorded. Sample u'-nouns, presumably u'- < *wo'-: u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 u't?e 'death; means or cause or place of death' 90:23.6 u'?iN 'pack(s)' u'nase '(a) surround; chasing (hunting) place' 90:44.1, 90:45.5 u's^kaN 'deed' 90:58.16 Inflection of udhu-verbs: udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 wi'udhagina' 'you told them about their own' 90:764.1 wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 I've tried to stick to the stem udhu'...he 'to follow (something) by means of; to follow a trail/tracks', but I had to supplement from udhu'...kkie 'to talk to someone about something' and udhu'...gidha 'to tell one's own about something' (maybe 'to tell someone about their own'). There is some variation in the marking (or occurrence) of accent in the wi'u- < *wa-i-o- and wiaN'gu- < *wa-i-uNk-o- sequences. I think this is just variation in handling wii'u- and wii'aN-, both in essence a three-mora diphthong. Interesting as showing also the second person object: aNdhaN'gudhihe aNgaN'dha=i 'we wish to follow you (in your deeds)' 90:735.15 Anomalous are: aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 By the by, I found the following verb: udhu'haN=bi=ama 'he cooked together (turnips and paunch)' 90:256.14 This is, of course, the non-reflexive underlying stem for 'pepper'. uhaN' 'to cook something' (cf. 90:21.13) > u'haN 'to cook things' (cf. 90:112.10) udhu'haN 'to cook one thing with another' (cf. 90:256.14) > wi'uhaN 'to cook things together' (not in the texts) ukki'haN 'to cook for oneself' (cf. 90:181.13) > u'kkihaN 'to cook things for oneself' (not in texts) udhu'kkihaN 'to cook together for oneself' (not in texts) > wi'ukkihaN 'to cook things together for oneself' (not in hte texts) The forms with the ">" are the wa-forms. It is mostly not possible to distinguish wa 'them' from wa 'things, detransitivizer' in OP, as far as I can see, except that with dh-stems, wa- 'them' seems to be accented. In the context the analysis this last is more like 'something cooked together with other things for oneself', which, modulo the complicating benefactive reflexive, is just what Rory concluded. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Nov 13 21:00:51 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:00:51 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question resolved, probably In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It turns out, with further probing, that the spelling I was given is the result of a non-speaker trying to write something dictated over the telephone and then "spelled" by the dictator. Sigh. Sorry to bother you all with this. I can usually field questions of this sort myself, but this one seemed just likely enough to be a possible variant. Thanks for your thoughts. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? > > The only think I could think of was that maybe the l was a misreading of > an apostrophe. The dot or accent seems to be missing from the s. Of > course, I don't know the context in which the form occurred which led to > the inquiry. > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 13 23:30:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:30:48 -0600 Subject: WAIL meeting call for papers. Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 21-23, 2005 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its eighth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive studies of the indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. Please indicate your source(s) of data in the abstract. For co-authored papers, please indicate who plans to present the paper as well as who will be in attendance. For email submissions, include the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Include the following information in the body of the email message: (1) your name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract, along with a 3x5 card with the information from the body of the email. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 15, 2005 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2005. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Yñez Mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles, which is approximately 90 miles southeast of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776, or check out our website under 'events' at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Nov 14 18:25:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:25:15 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Commentary, u-verbs: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 > u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 > u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 Except for the anomalous first person example, which I omitted here, these plural third person object forms all have initial accent and presumably an initial long vowel for the locative or inclusive pronoun reflecting contraction of wa- with the initial followed by loss of w before the rounded vowel of u- IN or aNg- A12. The latter counts as rounded because it is from *uNk- (cf. Dakotan). If we ever conclude that there are three nasal vowels in OP (or Dhegiha in general), then perhaps the one in aNg- is back/rounded anyway. Of course, the rules given here reflect the history of the forms. I think that a description of contemporary OP has to think in terms of initial accent/length as a reflex of wa- 'them' and wa- INDEF with u-stems. The same thing happens wrt nominalizations in wa- of u-verbs, whether we treat this as a third wa- DETRANS or a variant on wa- INDEF. > Sample u'-nouns, presumably u'- < *wo'-: > > u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 > Inflection of udhu-verbs: > > udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 > udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 > aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 The udhu- here is from *iro-, in other words the combination of the *i- and *o- locatives. These seem to have been formed, if the paradigm is taken into account, by adding i followed by epenthetic dh and then assimilating i across epenthetic dh to the following u or aN. Except for assimilating i to u across dh, this is basically the assimilative behavior exhibited with the i- and u-locatives throughout Dhegiha. The result of this pattern of formation is that the inclusive aNg- A1 appears between the i-locative and the u-locative, resulting in aN-dh-aNg-u- < *i-r-uNk-o-. My impression is that in Dakota the inclusives of these forms inflect by treating corresponding iyo- as a chunk and inserting uN(k) Pro12 after it: iyo-uN-. I don't know how the inclusives work in IO or Winnebago. In Dakotan and WInnebaog the first person follows all of the locatives as in OP. > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 > wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 > wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 > wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 In the wa- third person plurals, the epenthetic dh is either not produced or is "squeezed out" and wa-i- contracts to wi- or probably wii-. Another way to look at is that the "pre-composed" contraction wii- is added. "Precomposition" is basically a way of talking about analogical spread. All of the u- and udhu- forms are essentially regular for accentuation if we assume that accent is on the second mora and that contractions of wa-u- or wa-i- yield two mora (long) results. The only exceptions to regularity concern the VVV sequences that arise in the third person plurals of the udhu-forms. Either the way in which accent is perceived in wiiV- is a bit variable, or there are some actual variations. I don't know which, but my suspicion is that all onset diphthongs - uV, iV, eV - are treated as onset + VV in less careful speech and that even if the onset arises from a long vowel, it can lose accent to the following vowel as that becomes the sonority peak of the syllable. As a result VVV sequences tend to collapse to VV sequences. This probably accounts for accent shifting in other VV sequences, e.g., muu'=ase > mw=a'ase, or ee'(=)(?)aN > eaNaN', and so on. I think I'm correct in saying that e in ea and eaN sequences is not [ey(a)], but a sort of open e or aesc that proceeds transitionlessly into the following vowel, and is less prominent (maybe shorter?) than the following vowel. It has been a while since I heard the examples, however. A parallel development occurs in Winnebago, where hi-a- (*i-locative + first person agent) > yaa-, and ho-a- (*o-locative + fist person agent) > waa-. I assume this is an areal tendency, not an inherited one! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Nov 14 19:33:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:33:33 -0700 Subject: Dorsey Texts Message-ID: I've been meaning to say that I recently keyed in the missing couple of texts from the front of Dorsey 1890 (in SA format). I'll be happy to send them to anyone who wants them. An offline inquiry would mean less clutter on the list. John E. Koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Nov 14 22:05:23 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:05:23 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for demonstrating the u- pattern, John. I think I've been a little obtuse on this subject up until now, because I've been following a paradigm that is either mistaken, or at best a recent innovation. I had thought we had it nailed down with our speakers that 'them (anim.)' in u- verbs was handled as u-wa'-[root]. I had supposed that u- verbs took the accent on the second syllable and that u- nouns were accented on the first syllable, simply as a mechanism for distinguishing nouns from verbs. I know the process of *wa-o'- => *wo'- => OP u'- has been mentioned on the list before, but somehow it never quite clicked. Now I'd like to go through your list, parsing them out by underlying morphology, and raise a few more questions on the way. > ua'ne 'I seek it' 90:17.6 *o-a'-[root] I -> 3sg > udha'ne 'you seek him' 90:283.4 *o-ra'-[root] you -> 3sg > una'=bi=ama 'he sought him' 90:265.18 *o-[root]' 3sg -> 3sg > aNgu'na=i 'we seek him' 90:385.19 *uNk-o'-[root] we -> 3sg > u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 *wa-o'-a-gi-[root] I -> 3pl? > ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 *o-a'-[root] I -> 3(sg?/pl.inanimate?) > u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 *wa-o'-ra-[root] you -> 3pl? My question here is that I thought wa- as 'them' was restricted to animates. Two of these three cases seem to show that shoes as 'them' take wa-. > u'ne maNdhiN ama 'he was seeking them' 90:561.11 *wa-o'-[root] 3sg -> 3pl > u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 *wa-o'-[root] 3pl -> 3pl > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 *uNk-wa'-o-[root] we -> 3pl This one is interesting because it suggests that the rule of shifting accent forward in u- verbs to indicate an underlying wa- has been generalized to the extent of shifting it off the *wa-o- => u- syllable itself. If that weren't the case, the above example should have come out *aNgu'na=i. > u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u't?e 'death; means or cause or place of death' 90:23.6 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u'?iN 'pack(s)' *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u-verb) > u'nase '(a) surround; chasing (hunting) place' 90:44.1, 90:45.5 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u's^kaN 'deed' 90:58.16 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 *i-o'-a-[root] I -> 3sg > udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 *i-o'-ra-[root] you -> 3sg > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 *i-wa'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.anim. In this case, the accent does not move forward. > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 *i-o'-[root] 3sg -> 3sg.inan. > aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 *i-uNk'-o-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 *wa-i'-o-a-kki-[root] I -> 3sg?.anim? In this case, the accent moves back. > wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 *wa-i'-o-ra-kki-[root] you -> 3pl.anim. > wi'udhagina' 'you told them about their own' 90:764.1 *wa-i'-o-ra-gi-[root] you -> 3pl.anim. > wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 *wa-i'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.inan. Again, we seem to have a wa- for inanimate 'them'. > wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 *wa-i'-o-[root] 3pl -> 3pl.anim. Again, the accent moves back. > wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 *wa-i'-uNk-o-[root] we -> 3pl.inan. Again, a wa- for inanimate 'them'. > aNdhaN'gudhihe aNgaN'dha=i 'we wish to follow you (in your deeds)' 90:735.15 *i-uNk'-o-ri-[root] uNk-[root]' we -> you > aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 *o-uNk'-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. The 'we' affixed pronoun is inserted after the *o- rather than before it. > we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 *wa-i'-o-[root] uNk-[root] we -> 3pl.anim. The non-final verb in a verb chain is not inflected for subject as it could be. I suspect that the subject marker is optional in this position. If none is specified where one could be, that verb is parsed as an adverb. > udhu'haN=bi=ama 'he cooked together (turnips and paunch)' 90:256.14 *i-o'-[root] > This is, of course, the non-reflexive underlying stem for 'pepper'. > > uhaN' 'to cook something' (cf. 90:21.13) *o-[root]' > > u'haN 'to cook things' (cf. 90:112.10) *wa-o'-[root] > udhu'haN 'to cook one thing with another' (cf. 90:256.14) *i-o'-[root] > > wi'uhaN 'to cook things together' (not in the texts) *wa-i'-o-[root] > ukki'haN 'to cook for oneself' (cf. 90:181.13) *o-kki'-[root] Here's something I hadn't noticed before. I had thought of this kki- as a straight-up reflexive, such that the above should mean 'to cook oneself'. But I guess we do the same thing in English too. There is a difference between "I'm going to kill myself" and "I'm going to kill myself a bear". > > u'kkihaN 'to cook things for oneself' (not in texts) *wa-o'-kki-[root] > udhu'kkihaN 'to cook together for oneself' (not in texts) *i-o'-kki-[root] > > wi'ukkihaN 'to cook things together for oneself' (not in hte texts) *wa-i'-o-kki-[root] > In the context the analysis this last is more like 'something cooked > together with other things for oneself', which, modulo the complicating > benefactive reflexive, is just what Rory concluded. Now this brings up a couple of other things I'm a little vague on. First, that i- there. In many contexts, i- means that the verb action is accomplished by means of the foregoing. In others, it seems the i- is some sort dative pointer or something. Here, you seem to be interpreting it to mean 'together with'. Just what kind of salience does i- have, anyway? Is it just one morpheme, or multiple sound-alikes? Second, that kki-. The interpretation here is that it is the reflexive affix, which Dorsey indicates with an inverted or dotted 'k'. But Dorsey distinguishes another affix ki-, which he writes with upright 'k', which seems to indicate reciprocal action: "they do it to each other". I used to suppose that this reciprocal ki- was kHi-, until our speakers corrected me: both reciprocal and reflexive were pronounced kki-. With regard to 'pepper', I had been assuming that that kki- was the reciprocal affix, not the reflexive, and that that was the element that meant 'together with'. Comments? Finally, once again, what about the salience of wa-, 'them'? Is it for any plurality, as some of Dorsey's examples would seem to show, or is it restricted to animates, as I've been supposing? Perhaps usage is variant in modern Omaha? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Nov 14 22:39:36 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:39:36 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: >> aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 > > Except for the anomalous first person example, which I omitted here, these > plural third person object forms all have initial accent and presumably an > initial long vowel for the locative or inclusive pronoun reflecting > contraction of wa- with the initial followed by loss of w before the > rounded vowel of u- IN or aNg- A12. The latter counts as rounded because > it is from *uNk- (cf. Dakotan). If we ever conclude that there are three > nasal vowels in OP (or Dhegiha in general), then perhaps the one in aNg- > is back/rounded anyway. That makes sense. So we should parse that as: *wa-uNk'-o-[root] In that case, the accent falls on the first syllable naturally, without having to assume generalization of a rule of shifting the accent forward to indicate underlying wa-, as I suggested in my last posting. In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our speakers insist that the sequence *uNk-o'-[root] should be pronounced ugu'-[root], not aNgu'-[root] as Dorsey records it. That would seem to be independent corroboration of the conservative back/rounded nature of OP aNg- that John proposes above. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:48:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:48:29 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > .. I've been following a paradigm that is either mistaken, or at best a > recent innovation. I had thought we had it nailed down with our > speakers that 'them (anim.)' in u- verbs was handled as u-wa'-[root]. Nope, the u-wa'- forms definitely occur with some verbs. Very likely what you have encountered is essentially what is in Dorsey. I didn't do the wa-using u-verbs. They mostly have subjects not only animate, but human as I recall. I should probably have mentioned them again, but I had mentioned them earlier and I was (believe it or not) trying to cut things short! > > ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 > > *o-a'-[root] I -> 3(sg?/pl.inanimate?) This one is anomalous, either as glossed or as accented. It is possible that either one is wrong. > My question here is that I thought wa- as 'them' was restricted to > animates. Two of these three cases seem to show that shoes as 'them' > take wa-. An excellent point! I have no explanation. > > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 > > *uNk-wa'-o-[root] we -> 3pl I make it *wa-uN'k-o-. > This one is interesting because it suggests that the rule of shifting > accent forward in u- verbs to indicate an underlying wa- has been > generalized to the extent of shifting it off the *wa-o- => u- syllable > itself. If that weren't the case, the above example should have come > out *aNgu'na=i. However, I did initially womnder if it wasn't generalization of accent myself. > > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 > > *i-wa'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.anim. > > In this case, the accent does not move forward. I think there's no wa in this form, so the glossing is anomalous. It probably should be 'he followed it (the trail of the elk)'. > > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 > > *wa-i'-o-a-kki-[root] I -> 3sg?.anim? > > In this case, the accent moves back. But I tend to think that pronunication of wi'u- alternates with wiu'-, or at least the transcription does. > > wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 > > *wa-i'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.inan. > > Again, we seem to have a wa- for inanimate 'them'. Which I hadn't noticed. Maybe it's less a question of animacy than a specific perception of multiplicity, far more likely to be considered with animates. > > aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 > > *o-uNk'-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. > > The 'we' affixed pronoun is inserted after the *o- rather than before > it. Yes. > > we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 > > *wa-i'-o-[root] uNk-[root] we -> 3pl.anim. > > The non-final verb in a verb chain is not inflected for subject as it > could be. I suspect that the subject marker is optional in this > position. If none is specified where one could be, that verb is parsed > as an adverb. Yes. This looks like a case where the subordinate verb isn't inflected - what we might call progressive syntax. > Here's something I hadn't noticed before. I had thought of this kki- as > a straight-up reflexive, such that the above should mean 'to cook > oneself'. But I guess we do the same thing in English too. There is a > difference between "I'm going to kill myself" and "I'm going to kill > myself a bear". That's an example I hadn't thought of. Good parallel, thoyugh I think the Omaha forms never have both options. Anyway, I aven;t noticed one yet. I think the first benefactive reflexive I noticed was ukkine 'to hunt for for oneself'. > Now this brings up a couple of other things I'm a little vague on. > First, that i- there. In many contexts, i- means that the verb action > is accomplished by means of the foregoing. In others, it seems the i- > is some sort dative pointer or something. Here, you seem to be > interpreting it to mean 'together with'. Just what kind of salience > does i- have, anyway? Is it just one morpheme, or multiple > sound-alikes? I got the 'together with' reading from the original text example of udhuhaN, in which paunch meat (a stomach?) was being cooked with wild turnips. The i- aloows adding the addition thing cooked. Note this example from the LaFlesche Osage dicionary, though: i'-tha-tse 'to eat one thing with another' (p. 79a). This would be idhathe (ithatHe) in Omaha-Ponca, if it exists there. In this case the i- 'together with' is not a second locative. I think what the i- does with u- in udhu- (*iru-) is allow adding one more argument. So with udhuhe it is 'follow a route (first arg.) by means of something, i.e., by means of tracks (second arg.). In udhuie we have 'talk with someone (first arg.) about something (second arg.)'. In udhuhaN we have 'cook something (first arg.) with something else (second arg.)'. But i- alone is also adding an additional arugment, as in the idhathe 'eat something with something else' case. Now whether this i- is the same as i- 'by means of' I can't say. The latter could be a specialization of the former. As could be the former of the latter, if you think about it. The distinction may be more a matter of English glossing than anything. I don't know of any paradigmatic or syntactic differences. I'm inclined to say it's all one morpheme, because I can't distinguish between them in terms fo anything but the English gloss. How about i- in i'bahaN 'to think'? > Second, that kki-. The interpretation here is that it is the reflexive > affix, which Dorsey indicates with an inverted or dotted 'k'. But > Dorsey distinguishes another affix ki-, which he writes with upright > 'k', which seems to indicate reciprocal action: "they do it to each > other". I used to suppose that this reciprocal ki- was kHi-, until our > speakers corrected me: both reciprocal and reflexive were pronounced > kki-. I think that reciprocal is just a use of the reflexive. > With regard to 'pepper', I had been assuming that that kki- was the > reciprocal affix, not the reflexive, and that that was the element that > meant 'together with'. Comments? Either reciprocal or benefactive reflexive works, but perhaps the i- covers the reciprocality aspect already. > Finally, once again, what about the salience of wa-, 'them'? Is it for > any plurality, as some of Dorsey's examples would seem to show, or is it > restricted to animates, as I've been supposing? Perhaps usage is > variant in modern Omaha? Good questions. I wonder what Ardis has discovered about this? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:55:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:55:10 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our > speakers insist that the sequence > > *uNk-o'-[root] > > should be pronounced > > ugu'-[root], > > not > > aNgu'-[root] Interesting! No perceptible nasalization? > as Dorsey records it. That would seem to be independent corroboration > of the conservative back/rounded nature of OP aNg- that John proposes > above. It may be time to look again at the "back" nasal(s). I've been wondering if there's anything in the Ponca decision to opt for aN vs. the Omaha one to opt for oN. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:56:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:56:45 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Nope, the u-wa'- forms definitely occur with some verbs. Very likely what > you have encountered is essentially what is in Dorsey. I didn't do the > wa-using u-verbs. They mostly have subjects not only animate, but human > as I recall. Oops, I meant "objects" not subjects! From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 18:25:10 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:25:10 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? From rwd0002 at unt.edu Mon Nov 15 18:41:34 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:41:34 -0600 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Quoting shannon west : > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. > It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > A common word for "white man" in Interior Salish and Sahaptin, right? I don't think it is Dakotan. I would ask the Sahaptianists or Salishanists, or maybe even northernmost Numicists. Willem de Reuse From phute-khniyanyan at cfl.rr.com Mon Nov 15 18:59:58 2004 From: phute-khniyanyan at cfl.rr.com (phute-khniyanyan) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:59:58 -0500 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: shannon west wrote: >I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > > > > Could be 'ksuyeyapi'. From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Nov 15 19:24:21 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:24:21 +0100 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: > > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't > place it. Ideas? Riggs gives the Dakota word suya, adv. rightly, well from su 'seed' In Lakota wasuyA means 'to make a law, to judge" I know wasuyA is used both in old texts and among contemporary speakers, but I have never heard among speakers or seen in any dictionary suyA, which would be expected vt of wa-suyA. However, both Dakota and Lakota use yusu, vt 'to make right, to make ready'. So to me, the causative form suyA seems likely but I don't find any evidence to support its existence. But I think it is not impossible that a vt form perishes, but its wa- form survives. I am just guessing but perhaps examples could be found. Jan --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 19:20:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:20:18 -0700 Subject: Dorsey Texts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I've been meaning to say that I recently keyed in the missing couple of > texts from the front of Dorsey 1890 (in SA format). To clarify this mysterious offer, the whole set of Dorsey texts, 1890 and 1891, were keyed as text files by the Siouan Archives Project (Rood & Taylor and many students) at the U of Colorado during the 1970s. The material was prepared in a notation I loosely referred to as Siouan Archives (SA) format which allowed encoding the arbitrary notation of old and new publications on Siouan Languages using the resources of a small 6-bit character set and punch cards, UmaN'haN becomes +UMA$N*HA$N, for example. The first two Dorsey 1890 texts were selected by David Rood as a sample to pass to a programmer who was going to create some retrieval software. He never did, and the decks were lost. (Just to clarify, the programmer was *not* me, even though it sounds like there might have been some sort of kinship of spirit.) When I first got interested in the Omaha and Ponca langauge David gave me access to the remainder of the file and explained why the first couple of texts were missing. I thought, "Heck, I should just type those in again." A small section of the road to hell is paved with my good intentions, as everyone knows. Anyway, finally, 20 years later, I have keyed in those two texts. Now, on to the second thing on my list. My hat is off to the original SA team. I nearly went crazy typing those two texts in, even though I was using a text editor, not a cranky key punch with no display device and only limited correction mechanisms. I also allowed myself to use lowercase and real question marks, exclamation marks, etc., instead of the special SA codes for them. I had to use SA notation otherwise both for reasons of consistency and in order to properly encode some things like breves that SA notation handles, though more modern schemes aimed at modern Siouanist usage do not. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 15 19:44:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:44:34 -0600 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: Can't ID it via Kansa or Quapaw. KS suhu is 'bare' and su alone is 'seed'. Wish I could be of more help. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shannon west Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:25 PM To: Siouan List Subject: vocab word I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:14:28 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:14:28 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: rwd0002 at unt.edu Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:41 am Subject: Re: vocab word > Quoting shannon west : > > > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. > > It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > > > A common word for "white man" in Interior Salish and Sahaptin, > right? Yep. Didn't want to poison the question though. :) > I don't > think it is Dakotan. It sure looks like it though! Not that that means it is, but I figured this was a good place to ask. > I would ask the Sahaptianists or > Salishanists, or maybe > even northernmost Numicists. Well, it was a Salishanist who had me ask here. He says there is no known etymology for the word in Salish. I know someone in Sahaptin studies, so I'll give him a try next. Thanks for the idea. From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:09:01 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:09:01 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rankin, Robert L" Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:44 am Subject: RE: vocab word > Can't ID it via Kansa or Quapaw. KS suhu is 'bare' and su alone is > 'seed'. Wish I could be of more help. No problem. :) I recognised su as 'seed' also, but the -ya ending didn't work for me there. Thanks anyway! Shannon From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:23:00 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:23:00 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: phute-khniyanyan Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:59 am Subject: Re: vocab word > shannon west wrote: > > >I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't > place it. Ideas? > > > > > > > > > Could be 'ksuyeyapi'. Could you elaborate? My mind has become full of Lacandón lately, and there isn't so much room for Dakotan vocabulary. :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 23:59:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:59:15 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: A question that came up off the list leads me to post the following concerning certain Omaha-Ponca forms that have a reflexive form, but a benefactive reading (reflexively benefactive, of course). I was wondering if these occurred elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Dakota? These are not benefactives in the usual Dakotan sense (a second dative in (k)ic^i) or the usual OP sense (just a standard dative or maybe an igi- form). They are "reflexive forms with reflexively benefactive force." For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly reflexive reading), or gaghe 'to make' yields kkikkaghe 'to make something for oneself' as opposed to 'to make onself', or dhize 'to get' yields kkigdhize 'to get something for oneself' not 'to get oneself'. For the relevant stems the reflexive/reciprocal form has a "benefactively reflexive" or "reflexively benefactive" reading '*for* oneself' instead of a simple reflexive reading 'oneself'. I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in OP. On the other hand, the morphology of the suus and reflexive is the same across Dhegiha. I seem to remember benefactive reflexives in Osage. I assume they are everywhere in Dhegiha, just a bit obscure and easy to miss. I don't remember when I first noticed these in OP. It was a while ago, but after my initial OP sketch was written. I still remember the combination of "Aha!" and "Oops!" The problem in the sketch is that I concentrated on form and only took function into account secondarily and negligently. And, of course, I had only been looking at things a year or two. I don't recall seeing "benefactive reflexives" mentioned anywhere else in the literature, either, but they definitely occur in OP. From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 16 00:02:40 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:02:40 -0800 Subject: Siouan stops Message-ID: Hi, Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation is in other Siouan languages for comparison. Thanks, Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Nov 16 04:04:05 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:04:05 -0500 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > A question that came up off the list leads me to post the following > concerning certain Omaha-Ponca forms that have a reflexive form, but a > benefactive reading (reflexively benefactive, of course). I was wondering > if these occurred elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Dakota? In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' I have to say that describing the KI morphemes almost cost me my sanity - it's a very slippery category. Linda > > These are not benefactives in the usual Dakotan sense (a second dative in > (k)ic^i) or the usual OP sense (just a standard dative or maybe an igi- > form). They are "reflexive forms with reflexively benefactive force." > > For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek > something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly > reflexive reading), or gaghe 'to make' yields kkikkaghe 'to make something > for oneself' as opposed to 'to make onself', or dhize 'to get' yields > kkigdhize 'to get something for oneself' not 'to get oneself'. > > For the relevant stems the reflexive/reciprocal form has a "benefactively > reflexive" or "reflexively benefactive" reading '*for* oneself' instead of > a simple reflexive reading 'oneself'. > > I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not > 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple > datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, > iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). > > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > OP. On the other hand, the morphology of the suus and reflexive is the > same across Dhegiha. I seem to remember benefactive reflexives in Osage. > I assume they are everywhere in Dhegiha, just a bit obscure and easy to > miss. > > I don't remember when I first noticed these in OP. It was a while ago, > but after my initial OP sketch was written. I still remember the > combination of "Aha!" and "Oops!" The problem in the sketch is that I > concentrated on form and only took function into account secondarily and > negligently. And, of course, I had only been looking at things a year or > two. I don't recall seeing "benefactive reflexives" mentioned anywhere > else in the literature, either, but they definitely occur in OP. > > > > From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Nov 16 04:31:50 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:31:50 -0500 Subject: Siouan stops In-Reply-To: <20041116000240.57740.qmail@web53808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Quoting David Kaufman : > Hi, > > Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? > I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is > representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that > floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation > is in other Siouan languages for comparison. > > Thanks, > Dave Dakotan languages do, but in Assiniboine there is a broadly applied rule that voices simple stops intervocalically across both syllable and word boundaries so that the simple stops (and the affricate) surface as voiced at least 90% of the time. You will sometimes find Asb characterized as having a contrast of voiced vs. voiceless-aspirated stops (e.g., Hollow 1970), and voiced segments are used exclusively for simple unaspirated stops in some popular orthographies, but a spectrographic study I did a couple years ago (and reported on at the Siouan conference at Anadarko) indicated that Asb stops in fact have a [+/- asp] contrast with voiced allophones for the voiceless-unaspirated stops, but because of the voicing rule, the voiceless-unaspirated segments almost never surface (except in clusters). Performance affects pronunciation, so that a pause for any reason right before a simple stop - for phrasing, coughing, you name it - will allow a voiceless segment to surface. This is why you see Asb texts recorded by people like Deloria and Lowie waffling between voiced and voiceless stops. Deloria's "Notes on the Assiniboine" is peppered with cross-outs where she has typed one and then on second thought gone back and hand-written the other. Linda From jfu at centrum.cz Tue Nov 16 08:34:26 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:34:26 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100577845.41997c35d7ca9@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Linda > benefactive. 'Make for > oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: ic^?i'c^agha, which > does *not* mean > 'make oneself' > This is interesting. In Lakhota ic?i'chag^a can mean both "to make oneself (into)" and "to make for oneself". According to Deloria the difference is indicated by stress: he'cha ic?i'chag^a – "he made for himself that kind of thing" he'cha-ic?ichag^a – "he made himself to be of that kind" (Boas-Deloria, Dakota Grammar pp. 139) I am not sure I have ever been able to catch that subtle stress difference in a conversation with speakers, but I am sure that I have understood from context that heard speakers use ic?i'chag^a in both meanings. Similarly oi'c?ile - 'to seek something for oneself' and 'to seek/search oneself (as in pockets etc.)' Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: we'cag^a – I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) we'chag^a – I make my own (from ki'chag^a) So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? Jan Jan Ullrich www.inext.cz/siouan --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:22:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:22:48 -0600 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: > For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek > something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly > reflexive reading), What is 'to seek oneself' in Omaha, then? > I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not > 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple > datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, > iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > OP. Kansa has the benefactive in /gu"/ in contrast to dative/possessive /gi/. Is there something I'm missing here, or is the 'reflexive possessive' and the 'reflexive benefactive' the same? Reflexive possessive (suus) was my first guess at Catherine's form. Are we just talking about a translation difference? And I also wonder if we have plumbed the full set of possible causative forms with the various KI's. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:45:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:45:00 -0600 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' I guess I'm still having trouble contrasting the two possibilities. In Dakotan, would 'to put away/save ones own' be formally different? I'm still wondering if the distinction between 'to X for oneself' and 'to X ones own' is a purely English one. I'm looking for formal evidence, and we already know that the dative/benefactive and the possessive in Siouan can by and large be inflected with the same prefix -- well, at least in most of Dhegiha. So why are the reflexive versions of these two somehow different? Sorry, but I'm having trouble getting my head around this. Maybe not enough coffee this morning. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:50:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:50:08 -0600 Subject: Siouan stops Message-ID: I have an article on this. See: On Siouan Aspiration. In David S. Rood and Jule Gómez de García, eds., Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Siouan/Caddoan Languages Conference, Boulder: University of Colorado Department of Linguistics, (1996). Yes, Siouan languages either have or had an aspirated series of stops in addition to plain ones. See the list archives for my comment on the Biloxi dotted stops a couple of weeks ago. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation is in other Siouan languages for comparison. > > Thanks, > Dave From are2 at buffalo.edu Tue Nov 16 16:20:48 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:20:48 -0500 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <044701c4cbf3$3c55bd80$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I'm with Bob. (But I quit caffeine in the mornings and I'm not sure I think all day now.) Example: gigthiza-a! 'Get yourself some!' 'Take some for yourself!' gigthizha-a! 'Wash yourself/your own' as in NoNbe tHe gigthizha-a! 'Wash your hands!' translated in Siouan orthog: gigdhiza-a! gigdhizha-a! NaNbe tHe gigdhizha-a! Same form, one gets a 'for yourself' reading and one gets a 'yourself' reading. I think the difference is in the translation into English, and this can be seen by the fact that in my lousy dialect you can say 'take yourself some' relatively felicitously or 'take some for yourself.' So, I'm not sure that there's really a difference in Omaha. But I'm equally not sure that I'm understanding the idea either (maybe I just need clarification). -Ardis Suus, benefactive, reflexive, a rose by any other name, I still don't get it. Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a > form: > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' > > I guess I'm still having trouble contrasting the two possibilities. > In Dakotan, > would 'to put away/save ones own' be formally different? I'm still > wondering if > the distinction between 'to X for oneself' and 'to X ones own' is a > purely > English one. I'm looking for formal evidence, and we already know > that the > dative/benefactive and the possessive in Siouan can by and large be > inflected > with the same prefix -- well, at least in most of Dhegiha. So why > are the > reflexive versions of these two somehow different? Sorry, but I'm > having > trouble getting my head around this. Maybe not enough coffee this > morning. > > Bob > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:09:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:09:09 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <042401c4cbf0$23317590$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What is 'to seek oneself' in Omaha, then? Search me! Maybe both readings are possible, depending on context. > > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > > OP. > > Kansa has the benefactive in /gu"/ in contrast to dative/possessive /gi/. > > Is there something I'm missing here, or is the 'reflexive possessive' and the > 'reflexive benefactive' the same? Reflexive possessive (suus) was my first > guess at Catherine's form. The reflexive and suus (and dative) are entirely different in form and meaning. The reflexive simply has a self-benefactive sense with certain verbs. The reflexive (with or without a benefactive reading) has the marker kki ~ kkiK (with syncopating stems), e.g., une > ukkine 'to seek something for oneself' or dhize > kkigdhize 'to fetch something for oneself'. The suus (only one reading I'm aware of) has the marker gi ~ giK (with syncopating stems), e.g., une > ugine 'to seek one's own' or dhize > gigdhize 'to fetch one's own'. > And I also wonder if we have plumbed the full set of possible causative forms > with the various KI's. Omaha-Ponca has =...dhe 'simple causative', =...khidhe 'dative causative', =...kkidhe 'reflexive causative', =...gidhe 'suus causative'. I think that the first two tend to apply to intransitive and transitive stems, respectively, but I'm not positive it works out that simply. The reflexive and suus forms have the expected meanings. I don't know if there are any reflexive causatives with benefactive readings. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:38:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:38:23 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100622048.419a28e05ab14@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > I'm with Bob. (But I quit caffeine in the mornings and I'm not sure I > think all day now.) Example: > gigthiza-a! 'Get yourself some!' 'Take some for yourself!' > gigthizha-a! 'Wash yourself/your own' > as in NoNbe tHe gigthizha-a! 'Wash your hands!' > > translated in Siouan orthog: > gigdhiza-a! > gigdhizha-a! NaNbe tHe gigdhizha-a! > > Same form, one gets a 'for yourself' reading and one gets a 'yourself' > reading. But the form kkigdhize (or Ponca standard or Omaha popular kigthize) also exists, at least in Ponca. And the forms ukkine (reflexive) and ugine (suus) (in Ponca standard and Omaha popular ukine and ugine) also both exist, and the former occurs with benefactive readings. I'm puzzled that folks are puzzled by this. Mind you that doesn't mean that I feel I could necessarily predict the proper form for a given context, but it seems clear enough in when produced. I'm trying to think how to explain this differently. Morphologically for a transitive stem in Dhegiha there are four possibilities: - basic stem with no modifications, - the reflexive/reciprocal with kki(K)-, - the suus (reflexive possessive) with gi(K)-, and - the dative with gi-. The corresponding argument structures: - the basic stem is the unmarked situation (subject and direct object), - the reflexive/reciprocal identifies the subject and object to form a reflexive, or the subject and beneficiary, to form a benefactive reflexive, or it may have a reciprocal reading, - the suus indicates that the object is "possessed" by the subject (which might in some cases have a fairly benefactive interpretation, I guess), - the dative focuses the transitivity on a less direct object, which can be the "possessor" of the direct object, or a beneficiary. This may be a bit cut and dried, but I think it does for a starting analysis. Notes: The suus and dative look similar but have very different paradigms. The extra morphophoneme |K| at the end of the reflexive and suus is not a separate category marker, but a conditioned additional part of the basic marker. It occurs with syncopating verbs, and in most cases it alternates with the syncopated inflection of the underlying stem in first and second persons, e.g., akkippaghe, dhakkis^kaghe, kkikkaghe for the reflexive or gaghe 'to make'. Now if anything here is complicated, that pattern of inflection for stop stems is it. For want of any better ideas I call what goes on between the kki and the underlying stem a "secondary pseudo-inflection." The "pseudo" refers to the odd way the third person bows out of the picture in favor of *k. For most purposes the name is totally unnecessary, of course. You have to have two people who are comfortable with the morphological details of this and have some further issue to discuss before you need a name for this pattern. Half the time I can't remember how it works myself and everyone else seems to shy away in horror. Various people thinking about teaching or describing Omaha-Ponca seem to feel this should be left until the graduate studies phase of things. However, things like "Look, Mom! I made myself a sock puppet!" or "Don't get up! I'll get myself some coffee." are pretty basic conversationally. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:45:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:45:57 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100577845.41997c35d7ca9@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' This is definitely the same kind of reading, but I think that kik- here isn't a reflexive in morphological terms. It's a suus form, right? How's the simple stem inflected? I'm wondering if it's underlyingly a-(k)i-naNka? Which it could be in Omaha-Ponca, but in that case the reading would be a dative 'to put someone's on something; to put something on something for someone'. (And this stem doesn't have *-ka in OP, either.) (The datives are the ki's that contract with vowels in OP, whereas it's the suus ki's that do that in Dakotan!) > Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has > straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. The Dhegiha reflexive/reciprocal is kki- (written just ki- in the popular OP orthographies), while the suus is gi- (written gi- ditto). That Dakotan ic^?i- is unique to Dakotan. I think there's a Dakota reciprocal in khi- (or is it ikhi-?) that is cognate with the Dhegiha reflexive. > kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. > ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. > To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for > the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: > ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' Does kuNza have anything similar? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 18:24:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:24:42 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > In Lakhota ic?i'chag^a can mean both "to make oneself (into)" and "to > make for oneself". ... These examples were particularly interesting, because they refer to reflexives in form, and in each case there is a benefactive and a non-benefactive reading. It makes me wonder if with some work I could discover similar alternate readings for the Omaha-Ponca cases. > Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: > > I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in > ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with > kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). > > Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they > aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: > > we'cag^a ? I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) > we'chag^a ? I make my own (from ki'chag^a) > > So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help > differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? My explanation for the Dakotan k > c^h where c^ only is expected is that these forms all involve allomorphs of the preceding prefix with a -k extension (as in the OP examples being discussed), so the allomorph of ic^?i- here is ic^?ik-. Dakotan aspirates reflect in large measure Proto-Mississippi Valley preaspirates, e.g., kheya 'turtle' corresponds to OP kke 'turtle', both from something like *hke-, and these preaspirates seem to be what arrises in PMV from unretained sequences stops, to judge from OP inflectional forms like ppaghe 'I make' < *p-kaghe or kkaN=bdha 'I want' < *p-kaN=p-ra, or kkikkaghe 'to make for oneself' < *hkik-kaghe, etc. So, Dakotan forms like kic^hagha (underlying *kikhagha) are presumably reflexes of *kik-kagha, and simularly with ic^?ic^hagha < *ik?ik-kagha. Naturally, a certain amount of this might actually result from analogical treatment of the prefix-stem boundary in paradigms perceived as similar, rather than from large sets of prefixes having an historical -k extension. I've looked at the question of the origin of the -k extensions extensively. Initially I suspected that they were fossilized remnants of a original ki- that had been syncopated, rendering it less salient, and then supplemented - made more salient - by an extra full ki- (or whatever) in front of it. Currently I suspect somethung rather different. I think that the reflexive morpheme *hkik- is historically an incorporated "be with" coverb *hkik-. Fairly solid traces of it as a separate and as a dependent verb are described in Boas & Deloria. The current surface forms in Dakotan are khi ~ khic^(a), of course. The development of sense is something like "with" > "both"/"in the middle" > "reciprocal" > "reflexive". From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:59:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:59:14 -0700 Subject: Siouan stops In-Reply-To: <1100579510.419982b67afad@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > Dakotan languages do, but in Assiniboine there is a broadly applied rule > that voices simple stops intervocalically across both syllable and word > boundaries so that the simple stops (and the affricate) surface as > voiced at least 90% of the time. Bob's answered this in general terms and referred David to the archives for the recent discussion of underdotting in Biloxi. Underdotting (or overdotting or under-x-ing or inverting of the letter) is a common scheme in earlier orthographies for explicitly marking "unaspirated stops," in which case the aspirated stops are left unmarked. Sometimes a given source will do a little of both, leaving a residuum of ambiguous cases in the middle, though usually most of these are one or the other depending on the language. In Dhegiha - ignoring ejectives - there is a three-way contrast k : kk : kH, for example. Omaha-Ponca consistently voices the simple stops, yielding g : kk : kH which in standard Siouanist usage is written g : kk : kh, while the popular orthographies both opt for g : k : kH. (H for raised h.) Kaw goes pretty much the OP route, but kH is kX (velarized aspiration). Osage doesn't voice and the surface forms are more like k : hk : kX, with the added fillip that kX is is palatalized to kS^ before front vowels. It's been a while and I'm not sure how it is in Quapaw. I think it has some voicing, but maybe less than OP or Kaw. Maybe it has the intervocalic voicing that Linda described for Assiniboine. I think t and p in initial position are usually *R and *W, but I would have to check. I suspect IO is a lot like Assiniboine, as it too is apparently aspirated vs. unaspirated usually written as voicless vs. voiced, but with a fair number of the voiceless graphs indicating unaspirated stops that one would expect to be voiced. Winnebago has managed to switch completely to voiceless vs. voiced, though with some surprising realignments. The voiced "stops" are w j^ and g, and represent the original syllable initial unaspirated stops. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Nov 16 20:10:00 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:10:00 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, the situation in Lakota is very confued/confusing, and seems to vary from verb to verb and sometimes from speaker to speaker. Many verbs use the same form for both "I did it to myself" and "I did it to my own/for myself" (those two readings are usually both possible), but occasionally one can distinguish, though not the same way every time. I gave up looking for any patterns in this area a long time ago, and I don't think I have a list of which verbs do what anywhere. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > > > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' > > This is definitely the same kind of reading, but I think that kik- here > isn't a reflexive in morphological terms. It's a suus form, right? > How's the simple stem inflected? I'm wondering if it's underlyingly > a-(k)i-naNka? Which it could be in Omaha-Ponca, but in that case the > reading would be a dative 'to put someone's on something; to put something > on something for someone'. (And this stem doesn't have *-ka in OP, > either.) (The datives are the ki's that contract with vowels in OP, > whereas it's the suus ki's that do that in Dakotan!) > > > Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has > > straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. > > The Dhegiha reflexive/reciprocal is kki- (written just ki- in the popular > OP orthographies), while the suus is gi- (written gi- ditto). That > Dakotan ic^?i- is unique to Dakotan. I think there's a Dakota reciprocal > in khi- (or is it ikhi-?) that is cognate with the Dhegiha reflexive. > > > kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. > > ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. > > To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for > > the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: > > ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' > > Does kuNza have anything similar? > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Nov 16 20:23:54 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:23:54 -0700 Subject: kicaga vs. kichaga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At the risk of blowing my own horn, let me again refer you to my little paper in the IJAL issue dedicated to Eric Hamp (1985:4, p. 561-2). The "ch" is not from *k at all, but from *y (as are many other Dakotan aspirated c's). Although I have never pinned down the environments completely, there are many places where a Lak /k/ simply deleted at some earlier stage of the language, especially after /i/. The dative of kaga is an example: *ki-kaga becomes *ki-aga, develops an epenthetic */y/, and that */y/ becomes /ch/ by regular sound change. Perhaps another example of this k-deletion is the suus form of the ka- prefixed verbs, which is gla, maybe from *kya from *ki-ka. David David S. Rood Linguistics - Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > > Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: > > > > I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in > > ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with > > kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). > > > > Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they > > aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: > > > > we'cag^a ? I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) > > we'chag^a ? I make my own (from ki'chag^a) > > > > So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help > > differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? > > My explanation for the Dakotan k > c^h where c^ only is expected is that > these forms all involve allomorphs of the preceding prefix with a -k > extension (as in the OP examples being discussed), so the allomorph of > ic^?i- here is ic^?ik-. > > Dakotan aspirates reflect in large measure Proto-Mississippi Valley > preaspirates, e.g., kheya 'turtle' corresponds to OP kke 'turtle', both > from something like *hke-, and these preaspirates seem to be what arrises > in PMV from unretained sequences stops, to judge from OP inflectional > forms like ppaghe 'I make' < *p-kaghe or kkaN=bdha 'I want' < *p-kaN=p-ra, > or kkikkaghe 'to make for oneself' < *hkik-kaghe, etc. > > So, Dakotan forms like kic^hagha (underlying *kikhagha) are presumably > reflexes of *kik-kagha, and simularly with ic^?ic^hagha < *ik?ik-kagha. > Naturally, a certain amount of this might actually result from analogical > treatment of the prefix-stem boundary in paradigms perceived as similar, > rather than from large sets of prefixes having an historical -k extension. > > I've looked at the question of the origin of the -k extensions > extensively. Initially I suspected that they were fossilized remnants of > a original ki- that had been syncopated, rendering it less salient, and > then supplemented - made more salient - by an extra full ki- (or whatever) > in front of it. Currently I suspect somethung rather different. I think > that the reflexive morpheme *hkik- is historically an incorporated "be > with" coverb *hkik-. Fairly solid traces of it as a separate and as a > dependent verb are described in Boas & Deloria. The current surface forms > in Dakotan are khi ~ khic^(a), of course. The development of sense is > something like "with" > "both"/"in the middle" > "reciprocal" > > "reflexive". > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 01:29:39 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:29:39 -0800 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It took some digging around in the hundreds of pages of Lakota field data that I have, but to get back to the original post on the ambiguity of ic�i-forms between patientive reflexive ('oneself') and benefactive reflexive ('for oneself'), it is very real in Lakota. Here is a contrastive pair, again with kaGa 'make': patientive reflexive: ey�s^na wich�s^a ic��-chaGiN na uNgn�s^ wam�khas^kaN sometimes man 3RFL-make and maybe animal (about Iktomi) 'Sometimes he turns himself into a man, at other times maybe into an animal' benefactive reflexive: eh�Nni Lakh�ta ki chaNs^�N ic��-chaGa-pi old-time Lakota DEF chewing gum 3RFL-make-PL 'the old-time Lakota made chewing gum for themselves' More examples of benefactive reflexives: thalo he o-mic'i-he meat that cook-1SG.RFL-cook 'I cooked that meat for myself' aGuqapi he wa-mic'i-kse bread that cut-1SG.RFL-cut 'I cut that bread for myself' owiNz^a he mic'i-glayeqe quilt that 1SG.RFL-POSS.sew 'i sewed that quilt for myself' Interestingly, in this example, the alternative form miglayeqe can be used as well, with no change in meaning. Now this is actually a possessive reflexive (at least the translation is possessive): w��okiye ic��-la-kta pension 3RFL-ask for-FUT 'he was going to ask for his pension' What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. The other thing that comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', when the benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine with the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient ('object') forms. Such as: mn� wich�-k'u-pi water 3PL.PAT-give-PL 'they give them water' So if I have, by some incredible accident, elicited my benefactive reflexives by means of such verbs only so far, the natural explanation for the occurrence of patient-like looking benefactive reflexives would be that the verbs in question are special in that they ALWAYS mark benefactives with patient markers. But I doubt that this is the case. I'll check it out. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 02:37:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:37:11 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > It took some digging around in the hundreds of pages of Lakota field data that I have, but to get back to the original post on the ambiguity of ic’i-forms between patientive reflexive ('oneself') and benefactive reflexive ('for oneself'), it is very real in Lakota. > Here is a contrastive pair, ... I'm going to have to search the files to see if I can find contrasting usages of reflexive in OP. > More examples of benefactive reflexives: > ... > 'I cooked that meat for myself' > ... > 'I cut that bread for myself' > ... > 'i sewed that quilt for myself' At least one common element with benefactive reflexives is that reflexive reading doesn't make much sense, but I think really that the essential thing is that the verb continues to take (at least implicitly) its normal sort of object or patient and that the presence of the reflexive indicates that the subject and beneficiary are one. Maybe the essential characteristic of the relevant forms is that they prefer inanimate objects and don't readily omit them, but admit an optional beneficiary? While the examples from Regina and Jan are morphologically (mostly) reflexive, it appears that reflexive possessive forms sometimes have this reading, too, in Dakotan (and also in Omaha, given Ardis's example). Perhaps the conditioning factor there is the extent to which the object can be an inalienable possession? If not, a reflexive is preferred? > Interestingly, in this example, the alternative form miglayeqe can be > used as well, with no change in meaning. I think this is the reflexive possessive form, but I can't remember for Dakota! Maybe it's first dative? > Now this is actually a possessive reflexive (at least the translation is > possessive): > > wó’okiye ic’í-la-kta > pension 3RFL-ask for-FUT > 'he was going to ask for his pension' How about 'He was going to ask for a pension for himself.' The first approach assumes entitlement - it's his pension and now he wants it - while the second depicts it as more of a boon that can't be counted on - he'd like a stipend, but doesn't count on it. I'm not suggesting a there's a productive alternation possible, but that there might be a stereoyped attitude to the likelihood of receiving a pension. > What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically > speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. I guess I'm suggesting this for the scope: predicates that can't push an object into chomage (if I can still use that expression!), but can admit an optional benefactive reference to the subject, while the relationship of the subject to the object is alienable possession. I'd assume that any verb that allowed a reflexive possessive in Dakota would allow a second dative if the beneficiary was not reflexive, and would retain the object reference. A verb that allowed a reflexive possessive with benefactive reflexive reading would seem more likely to allow a first dative if the beneficiary was not reflexive. > In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I > have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. I'm afraid I got lost here! From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Nov 17 08:30:48 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:30:48 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed > to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. I think the igl- and ikp- forms can do that just as well as ic?i- Here is an example from my text corpus: chaN kiN iglaksapi = They cut the wood for themselves (iglaksa = refl. from kaksa) > The other thing that comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', > when the benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine with > the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient ('object') forms. Such as: k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. She has taken herself away from us. But perhaps I got lost a bit in your discussion of benefactive person markers in place of plain patients. Jan --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 08:38:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:38:59 -0700 Subject: OP Reflexive Morpheme Examples Message-ID: First, an apology to everyone to whom I may have been offensively sarcastic in my wording today. I didn't notice the sarcasm or perceive its offensiveness it until later. However, poorly chosen phrases have been surfacing from my memory all evening. It's something I need to work on. Inspired by the examples from Jan and then Regina, I thought I ought to look for cases of the same reflexive verb used non-benefactively and benefactively in OP. I did find that at least 'make' can be used that way. Recall that the reflexive prefix in OP is kki- ~ kkig-. The final -g allomorph occurs before stop-stems (like gaghe 'to make') and dh-stems. The latter are like y-stems in Dakotan. Transitive readings: a'z^i aNkki'kkaghe aNga'dhe different we make ourselves we go we go along making ourselves different jod 90:236.18 ha'hadaN kkikka'gha= ga ready make yourself IMP jod 90:519.8 sa'be=xti kkikka'ghe= xti=aN=bi=ama very black he made himself he very jod 90:88.3 hiNxpe' kkikka'gha=i fine feather he made himself he made himself into a down feather jod 90:151.8-9 Benefactive readings: maN' aNkki'kkaghe=tte arrows let us two make them for ourselves jod 90:84.16 There are lots of benefactive examples. I could see some of the "non-benefactive" cases being considered benefactive, too, where the thing "made" is a personal quality. For other verbs I don't have any oppositions so far, but I suspect they exist. Here are verbs wih one use or the other observed. Sample "regular" reflexive readings: kkigdhi's^iba=bi=ama it opened itself jod 90:62.10 a'gaxdhe kkigdhisaNdha=bi=ama with the wind he turned himself around he changed courses walking into the wind jod 90:71.13-14 kkimu'gdhaN agdha'=bi=ama stealing himself off he went homeward jod 90:101.3-4 Reciprocal readings: tti'gaghe z^u'=kkigdhe= hnaN=bi=ama playing (house) they were with each other constantly jod 90:148.16 akki'wa kkigdhaN'= hnaN=bi=ama both they reviled each other invariably jod 90:148.17 kkittaN'be=xti gaN naNz^iN'=bi=ama looking hard at each other so they stood jod 90:277.4 Note that there are lots of reciprocal verbs with kkikki, but I think these occur because many verbs with a somewhat reciprocal base sense have one kki as part of the stem and then can add another kki to emphasize that. For example, a...kkippa 'to meet someone', but a...kkikkippa 'to meet each other'. Benefactive readings: ma's^aN ua'kkine feathers I hunt (them) for myself jod 90:25.1 we'dadhe i'kkikkuha=bi= egaN to give birth he feared it for himself having jod 90:39.10 haN'bdhiNge aNkki'?a=i beans we hoed (them) for ourselves jod 90:58.7-8 waz^e=akkiz^i I roasted the collection for myself jod 90:63.4 ttanu'kka he'be akki'ppad=egaN= tte= ha fresh meat piece I cut up for myself will DECL jod 90:72.16 tti' a'kkie=ama=tta we'kkigdhixe adhe idha=bi=ama lodges thick the to to seek assistance for herself to go to she spoke of jod 90:110.7-8 ===== I didn't happen on any suus forms with reflexive benefacive readings, but (a) I didn't go very far into Dorsey on each particular pass, and (b) Dorsey's texts tend to use very stylized glosses, and he may never gloss a suus form reflexively through on that basis, even where such a gloss would be the most natural one. I'm satisfied that such examples must exist. ===== I wonder if the term to characterize verbs that support benefactive reflexive clauses is something like factive or factitive? I'm looking for the phrase that means 'verbs that express a process of producing something (for someone, perhaps oneself)'. Maybe also 'getting something'. It looks like factitive might actually be the opposite of what I want - it seems to mean somethign like 'making something have a certain quality', which is where 'make' is properly reflexive. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 08:53:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:53:55 -0700 Subject: Dative, etc., Causatives in OP Message-ID: At Bob's request, here are cases of different dative, etc., variants of causatives. I was able to use variations on t?e=dhe 'to kill' ('to make die') for all the main set of examples. Basic causative =dhE (like Dakotan =yA) t?e'=dha=bi= ama he killed him (they say) jod 90:283.12 Dative causative =khidhE (like Dakotan =khiyA) ni'kkagahi u'z^u t?e'=dhikhidha=i= hnaNkha=s^e chief principal they killed him for you you the sitting ye whose principal chief was killed jod 90:17.1 Reflexive Causative =kkidhe t?e'=akkidhe= xti=maN I have killed myself I altogether I have totally done myself in jod 90:262.11 Reflexive Possessive Causative =gidhe iz^iN'ge t?e'=gidha=i his son he killed his own jod 90:611.13 I couldn't pass up these examples. A double causative: t?e'=kkidhe= wadhe die they make themselves he made them he made them kill themselves jod 90:141.11 A reflexive embedded under a causative: kki?aN'=khidhe= s^te=aN=bi he made her paint herself even (I think this might refer to painting her hair parting.) jod 90:80.5 From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 17 14:40:45 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:40:45 -0600 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend Message-ID: I received this question and thought I'd pass it along in case someone has better insight than I do. The second name does sort of "look" Algonquian, but that's about all I can say. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > meaningless. > Thanks, > John From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 17 15:14:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:14:15 -0600 Subject: KI-form transcriptions. Message-ID: Looking back at the posts, I think part of my perplexity stems from the fact that a combination of the scientific and the Fletcher & La Flesche transcription systems is clouding the issues. It shouldn't, since I've been accustomed to seeing both for many years, but that doesn't necessarily help before the coffee kicks in. I understand why people like to use the official spellings, but they are best reserved for dictionaries (i.e., individual words) and syntax issues. They are lacking in the morphophonemic department and I'd suggest that we stay with the scientific "net Siouan" transcription for issues of phonology and morphology (and their interface), just as we would for English and other languages. If I get a query about a morpheme with the shape kki-, I have no problem, but if I get a query about a morpheme spelt ki-, I don't readily know what it represents. It could be Riggs' /khi/, La Flesche's /kki/, Dorsey's /ki/ in Quapaw or Osage, Rood and Taylor's /ki/ or something entirely different. In other words it could be representing [kh, k, hk, kk, g]. Or just include both, but clearly labeled. Bob > But the form kkigdhize (or Ponca standard or Omaha popular kigthize) also > exists, at least in Ponca. And the forms ukkine (reflexive) and ugine > (suus) (in Ponca standard and Omaha popular ukine and ugine) also both > exist, and the former occurs with benefactive readings. > I'm puzzled that folks are puzzled by this. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 17:22:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:22:43 -0700 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend In-Reply-To: <058d01c4ccb3$6d0939f0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > > meaningless. The problem in Siouan contexts is that there are relatively few cases where /mu/ or /mo/ makes sense (OP and Wi, of course). Biloxi - which is in the vicinity - loses initial labials, right? I assume the spelling represents something between mules^aaskek and mulzaaskek. English looks like a better bet than a Siouan language. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Nov 17 18:11:57 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:11:57 +0100 Subject: benefactory/possessive etc. reflexives Message-ID: In one of my sources, I came up with a reflexive in Dakotan (which I've altered a bit in order to make the meaning smth less obvious) wondering whether it is possible for you to tell me: 1) are there different ways of possible translations (i.e. is the sentence grammatically ambiguous or not), 2) is it only up to context to decide? It is: matxo sapa ?ic?i'ye Thanks Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Nov 17 18:48:34 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:34 +0100 Subject: Mooleshawskek Message-ID: For what it's worth, here's maybe a trace for further research: "Wolf’s Friend, or Mooleshawskek, appears to have been of a crafty disposition and fond of display, though a chief of great influence. From the appearance of his Indian name, the writer leans to the view that this chief was not a native Chickasaw, but an adopted member of the tribe. Considerable light is thrown upon his character by Captain Guion’s letter to the Secretary of war, dated “Fort Adams, Chickasaw Bluff, October 22, 1797,” as given in Claiborne’s Mississippi, 185-6." ... though the writer - apparently familiar with the source cited - doesn't know for sure, either. :( http://www.natchezbelle.org/ahgp-ms/chiefs/index.htm#menu Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 19:56:28 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:56:28 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jan, both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the reflexive, too. David > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. > > > > > > But perhaps I got lost a bit in your discussion of benefactive person > markers in place of plain patients. > > > > > > Jan > --- > Odchoz� zpr�va neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolov�no antivirov�m syst�mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov� b�ze: 539 - datum vyd�n�: 12.11.2004 > David S. Rood From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 17 20:02:47 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:02:47 -0500 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend In-Reply-To: <058d01c4ccb3$6d0939f0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Yes, John sent this to me and I thought, well, "it *could* be Algonquian, but it rang no bell, then I sent it to Dave Costa and it rangeth no bells with him either. If this is Algonquian, it's conceivably a garbling. Michael On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I received this question and thought I'd pass it along in case someone has > better insight than I do. The second name does sort of "look" Algonquian, but > that's about all I can say. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > > meaningless. > > > Thanks, > > > John > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 20:52:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:52:33 -0700 Subject: *y-Stem Verbs (RE: Benefactive Reflexives) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected > extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the > reflexive, too. > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. (I was also wondering about the ii here.) Interesting! This looks like it should be a reflex of a "syncopating" or "second conjugation" *y-stem *iyu, though I would have expected ic^hu for the basic stem. The kc^ cluster occurs in Dakota for stop + *y clusters, e.g., Da (wi)kc^emna 'ten' vs. OP gdheb(dh)aN 'ten' < PS *kyepraN. The *y-stems are pretty scarce and the main one the CSD project is aware of is *DEM=yE 'to think'. This has Da first persons like epc^e vs. OP ebdh(egaN) 'I (kinda) think'. Actually, Da only has first persons for the 'think' verb, as I understand it. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 21:21:39 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:21:39 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on exactly that kind of imposition. Lakhota is not terribly unusual among the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, unregistered in the verb. If you want to make the Lakhota and English structurally alike, try glossing the verb as 'to gift' rather than 'to give'; I could say 'she gifted me with it' instead of 'she gave it to me'. The reason there is no benefactive morphology with this verb is that it doesn't take a syntactically benefactive argument. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > > What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically > speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. In fact, it now occurs > to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed to elicit > so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. The other thing that > comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', when the > benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine > with the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient > ('object') forms. Such as: > > mn� wich�-k'u-pi > > water 3PL.PAT-give-PL > > 'they give them water' > > So if I have, by some incredible accident, elicited my benefactive > reflexives by means of such verbs only so far, the natural explanation > for the occurrence of patient-like looking benefactive reflexives would > be that the verbs in question are special in that they ALWAYS mark > benefactives with patient markers. But I doubt that this is the case. > I'll check it out. > > Regina > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Nov 17 21:37:28 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:37:28 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, thanks for correcting me. Indeed ii'c?ikcupi is a form of icu (not k?u), as even my English translations of the sample sentences show :). I was being sloppy. I meant to say that I do find occurences of ic?i'c?u, the reflexive and reflexive benefactive of k?u': Reflexive: Tunwe'ya ya'pi kta ic?i'c?upi. = They voluntered to go as scouts (lit.: they gave themselves ...) Reflexive benefactive: Woimagaga ota ic?i'c?u. = He gave himself a lot of ammusement. Jan David Rood wrote: > Jan, > > both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected > extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the > reflexive, too. > > David > > > > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > > > She has taken herself away from us. > > > > --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 21:29:24 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:29:24 -0800 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [John] >I think really that the essential >thing is that the verb continues to take (at least implicitly) its >normal >sort of object or patient and that the presence of the reflexive >indicates >that the subject and beneficiary are one. >> In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I >> have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. >I'm afraid I got lost here! What I meant (I should have made that more explicit) is that by the building-block logic of person marking in Lakota, one might expect that benefactive reflexives are coded by means of reflexive ic'i-forms plus the benefactive/possessive marker ki-, which would yield something like ic'ici- for third person singular benefactive reflexive. Today's Lakota session has revealed that such forms do, however, not exist. At least my speaker and me haven't been able to produce such an example. [Jan/David] > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. >both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an >unexpected >extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the >reflexive, too. Right. But the examples are very nice and illustrate the patientive/benefactive ambiguity of ic'i-forms. Here is another one with icu 'take': peanuts etaN i-mic'i-kcu peanuts some take-1SG.RFL-take 'I got myself some peanuts' Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 22:16:14 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:16:14 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [David] > Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does > not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It > has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category > descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of > "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on > exactly that kind of imposition. My surprise in this case does not stem from the Indo-European category glasses that I might be wearing, but rather from what Lakota itself does in terms of categorization. The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with certainty right now. Another possible exception might be wiyopheya 'sell' though. So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of analogy with the rest of the system that's the real eye-catcher. > Lakhota is not terribly unusual among > the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as > the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, > unregistered in the verb. I don't think that that's correct. I found the following example in my text collection: wich�-ma-k�u-pi 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-IMPERSONAL 'I was given to them (i.e. to the family in marriage)' Both patient and benefactive appear as person affixes here. Wicha- is the benefactive, ma- is the patient. k'u 'give' is simply unusual in that it takes double patient markers, even though one of the patient markers must be interpreted as a benefactive. Or maybe, as David says, if the recipient is really conceptualized as another direct object, we have two direct objects here. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 22:38:19 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:38:19 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117221614.29781.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regina, thanks for the clarification; you're right about "benefactive" being a very well developed category in Lak; my annoyance with the usual analogy to IE datives stems from much more than the Lakhota examples. I must admit to astonishment at your wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'I was given to them'. I have never been able to elicit three overtly marked arguments on that verb in all my years of trying. I don't know what to make of it. Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? The only form I ever got for that was mak'upi, with no registration of the 'they', or perhaps hena cha mak'upi (but that's ambiguous as to whether the hena is subject or not). How does iyuNga 'to ask someone something' work? I don't think the 'something' can ever be animate, so it would never be marked on the verb anyway. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > [David] > > Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does > > > not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It > > > has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category > > > descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of > > > "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on > > > exactly that kind of imposition. > > My surprise in this case does not stem from the Indo-European category glasses that I might be wearing, but rather from what Lakota itself does in terms of categorization. The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with certainty right now. Another possible exception might be wiyopheya 'sell' though. So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of analogy with the rest of the system that's the real > eye-catcher. > > > Lakhota is not terribly unusual among > > > the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as > > > the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, > > > unregistered in the verb. > > I don't think that that's correct. I found the following example in my text collection: > > wich�-ma-k�u-pi > > 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-IMPERSONAL > > 'I was given to them (i.e. to the family in marriage)' > > Both patient and benefactive appear as person affixes here. Wicha- is the benefactive, ma- is the patient. k'u 'give' is simply unusual in that it takes double patient markers, even though one of the patient markers must be interpreted as a benefactive. Or maybe, as David says, if the recipient is really conceptualized as another direct object, we have two direct objects here. > > Regina > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 00:05:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:05:17 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117212924.31084.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > What I meant (I should have made that more explicit) is that by the > building-block logic of person marking in Lakota, one might expect that > benefactive reflexives are coded by means of reflexive ic'i-forms plus > the benefactive/possessive marker ki-, which would yield something like > ic'ici- for third person singular benefactive reflexive. Today's Lakota > session has revealed that such forms do, however, not exist. At least my > speaker and me haven't been able to produce such an example. Thanks. Now I understand. I hadn't thought of this. I know that it is possible to have multiple locatives, and I think there are some cases of multiple instrumentals - though it's not common - but are there any cases of multiple "things that begin (or almost begin) with k"? The OP example of a "reflexive verb with a causative" that I reported last night ("he caused her to paint herself") qualifies in the strict sense, so I'd better specify simple predicates and not complex ones. I'm missing the obvious. There's the Dakota second dative kic^i-form. In some sense the two elements there behave as a single chunk, but this is definitely more like what I was wondering about. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 00:53:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:25 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117221614.29781.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers > can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of > benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses > benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive > paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with > certainty right now. > So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs > the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using > patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for > (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of > ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of > analogy with the rest of the system that's the real eye-catcher. But does Lakota use patient markers for patients and benefactive markers for benefactives? Apart from the unusual "gave me to them" case cited, which I assume will be discussed separately, I have the impression that there is only one set of patient agreement markers present typically. If there is a benefactive prefix present, the markers signify the beneficiary; if not, the patient. The morphology of the benefactive causes the patient morphemes to assume a different shape - miN- vs. maN-, etc., when they occur with it, but the potential for both kinds of marking to occur is absent or minimal. All the exceptions I've ever heard of involved the third person plural. It's certainly typical of Dhegiha to mark one kind of object or the other, not both, and I had always thought the same was true also of Dakota, barring a few marginal examples in either language. You can definitely have a nominal reference to a patient in a transitive clause with a benefactive verb, however. I take the noun to be essentially a "chomeur." In some languages this would entail some kind of adposition or case marking, but this is not typical in Siouan langauges. As far as I know you can never mention a dative in this way - as a noun or postpositional phrase only, with no marking in the verb. Thus, in the strict sense, you can say "I gave him the bread." or "I gave bread." but not "I gave bread to him." This is the pattern I associate with what I've seen called primary vs. secondary object marking, albeit in Siouan languages there is a ranking constraint that requires a verb to make a primary object of any dative (or benefactive) argument. I don't think that constraint is always present with primary vs. secondary schemes. Rephrasing this, the pattern I thought I was seeing in Siouan languages is that their verbs code one object. Non-dative verbs - "simple transitives" - code a patient and no uncoded dative object nominal can be mentioned in the clause. Some kinds of more remote objects can be introduced with locative prefixes. Dative verbs code a dative and an uncoded patient object nominal can be included in the clause. Most dative verbs involve some specific marker of dativeness, which is usually manifested to some degree in a modification of the form of explicit patient pronominals. The unique thing about k?u and any similar verbs in this context is that they behave as dative verbs without benefit of any special marking - they are inherently dative. A Siouan parallel for this (for OP) would be dhiNge' 'to lack' which inherently agrees with the experiencer of the lack, whereas git?e' 'one's kin to die' requires the help of the dative gi-prefix to do this. hiNbe' aNdhiN'ge shoes I don't have iz^iN'ge iNt?e' son I had die (I wonder if wiz^iN'ge is required here?) There is one interesting thing about k?u as an "unmarked dative verb." It does start with k. Maybe the verb was *k-?u in Proto-Siouan. There's apparently no reason to see it in these terms in any of the modern languages. I don't know of any occurrences of hypothetical underlying *?u, either. From lcumberl at indiana.edu Thu Nov 18 02:12:02 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:12:02 -0500 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? I have this in my data for Asb: pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' Linda From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Nov 18 02:17:18 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:17:18 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [David] > I must admit to astonishment at your wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'I was given > to them'. I have never been able to elicit three overtly marked > arguments on that verb in all my years of trying. I haven't even elicited that one, it's from coherent discourse, i.e. from one of Neva's texts. But in my experience, things that occur in connected discourse are not always considered grammatical in elicitation. Here is another k'u-form from the texts, also with three overt arguments, one of them being wa- 'non-specific patient'. But the analysis of this example is complicated by the presence of locative o-, to the effect that the verb form might contain a locative phrase rather than a benefactive one, depending on the interpretation. Buechel has ok'u 'to give to, especially food', but that doesn�t tell us either if the Lakota speaker conceptualizes the o-participant as a locative or as a benefactive. w-�-�uN-ni-c�u-pi-kte NSP.PAT-LOC-1PL.AG-2SG.PAT-give-PL-FUT 'we'll give you food/things' > I don't know what to make of it [wicha-ma-k'u-pi]. Could it also mean > 'they were given to me'? Theoretically yes, but I have no data on whether this translation is possible or not. It might be elicitable if we put something animate such as 'horses' in the patient slot. The interpretation of wicha-ma-k'u-pi as it is used in the text is unambiguous, at least to me. I'm pasting the example again below, this time adding a little more context: ho h�haN Lakh�ta �tkiya hiNgn�thuN-ma-khiya-pi cha well then Lakota according to marry-1SG.PAT-CAU-PL QL wich�-ma-k�u-pi. cha wich�s^a waN hiNgn�-wa-ye 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-PL. so man LK marry-1SG.AG-marry ki slol-w�-ye-s^ni DEF know-1SG.AG-know-NEG 'Then they made me marry the Lakota way, so they gave me to them (Neva said that wicha- refers to her husband-to-be's family). I didn't know the man I married.' > How does iyuNga 'to ask someone something' work? I don't think > the 'something' can ever be animate, so it would never be marked on > the verb anyway. An animate patient won't work here for semantic reasons, but I think I have seen some examples with wa- 'non-specific patient' appearing in this slot. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at centrum.cz Thu Nov 18 13:28:05 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:05 +0100 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <1100743922.419c04f242034@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much interest on the list. I encountered it in the following sentence: Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. >>From those he gave me I shall lose none. However, the previous sentence of the same text says: Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. All of those that my father gave me will come to me. In both instances the object is animate according to the context. At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the sentence recorded by Regina: Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical translation: nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and "they gave ME to you" Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be employed? Jan > lcumberl at indiana.edu > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > Linda > > > --- > Příchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 > --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 17:19:28 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:19:28 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041118021718.67413.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > Here is another k'u-form from the texts, also with three overt > arguments, one of them being wa- 'non-specific patient'. But the > analysis of this example is complicated by the presence of locative o-, > to the effect that the verb form might contain a locative phrase rather > than a benefactive one, depending on the interpretation. Buechel has > ok'u 'to give to, especially food', but that doesn’t tell us either if > the Lakota speaker conceptualizes the o-participant as a locative or as > a benefactive. I believe Carolyn Quintero had a series of a-locative forms in Osage with benefactive readings, but I don't recall the details. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Nov 18 18:44:44 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:44:44 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > > I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I > posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much > interest on the list. > > I encountered it in the following sentence: > > Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. > >From those he gave me I shall lose none. > > However, the previous sentence of the same text says: > > Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. > All of those that my father gave me will come to me. > > In both instances the object is animate according to the context. > > At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of > error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's > Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of > translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for > 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one > occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. > > Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with > wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when > eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). > > I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the > sentence recorded by Regina: > > Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. > = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. > > This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. > Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. > > > There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical > translation: > > nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. > > > So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and > "they gave ME to you" > Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of > these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be > employed? > > > Jan > > > > > > lcumberl at indiana.edu > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > > > Linda > > > > > > --- > > Příchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. > > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 > > > --- > Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Nov 18 18:53:47 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:53:47 -0700 Subject: error in previous message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I meant wicha-ma-la-pi to mean (possibly) 'they asked THEM for me', not *'they asked me for you.' Sorry. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons > is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? > What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to > you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to > you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works > like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think > this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to > have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb > without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > > > > > > I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I > > posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much > > interest on the list. > > > > I encountered it in the following sentence: > > > > Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. > > >From those he gave me I shall lose none. > > > > However, the previous sentence of the same text says: > > > > Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. > > All of those that my father gave me will come to me. > > > > In both instances the object is animate according to the context. > > > > At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of > > error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's > > Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of > > translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for > > 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one > > occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. > > > > Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with > > wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when > > eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). > > > > I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the > > sentence recorded by Regina: > > > > Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. > > = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. > > > > This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. > > Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. > > > > > > There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical > > translation: > > > > nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. > > > > > > So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and > > "they gave ME to you" > > Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of > > these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be > > employed? > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > lcumberl at indiana.edu > > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > > > > > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > > > > > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > > > > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Příchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. > > > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 > > > > > --- > > Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. > > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 > > > > > From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Nov 18 18:59:58 2004 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:59:58 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think one thing we want to keep clear is the fact that the benefactive prefix is a benefactive applicative, a derivational prefix that alters the argument structure of the verb stem rather than representing an argument directly. 'Give' typically doesn't appear with benefactive applicatives, because it already has a beneficiary in its argument structure. Applicatives add one. In some languages, applicatives are added only to intransitive verbs, making them transitive. In others, applicatives can be added to either intransitives or transitives. In these cases, there are again two ways to go. The original object/absolutive/patient of the base transitive can either stick around as an argument, or be displaced, ending up as some kind of oblique or adjunct or 'chômeur'. The interesting thing is that in a lot of situations, like here, it can be hard to tell what happened, because inanimates are not represented on the verb by pronominal affixes anyway. So Regina's example is especially nifty! Marianne --On Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:44 AM -0700 ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons > is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? > What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to > you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to > you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works > like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think > this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to > have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb > without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > >> >> >> I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I >> posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much >> interest on the list. >> >> I encountered it in the following sentence: >> >> Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. >> > From those he gave me I shall lose none. >> >> However, the previous sentence of the same text says: >> >> Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. >> All of those that my father gave me will come to me. >> >> In both instances the object is animate according to the context. >> >> At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some >> sort of error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English >> (Buechel's Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the >> results of translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use >> of mak?u for 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could >> only one occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. >> >> Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with >> wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when >> eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa >> mak?u). >> >> I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in >> the sentence recorded by Regina: >> >> Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. >> = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. >> >> This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. >> Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. >> >> >> There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's >> biblical translation: >> >> nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. >> >> >> So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and >> "they gave ME to you" >> Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of >> these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be >> employed? >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> > lcumberl at indiana.edu >> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM >> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >> > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' >> > >> > >> > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? >> > >> > >> > I have this in my data for Asb: >> > >> > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' >> > >> > Linda >> > >> > >> > --- >> > Pøíchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. >> > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >> > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 >> > >> --- >> Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. >> Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >> Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004 >> >> > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Nov 18 19:28:48 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:28:48 +0000 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/11/04 11:01 pm, "ROOD DAVID S" wrote: > > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? > > Thanks. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > Walansila looks like a mistake to me. I can't think of anything near it. It could be a misquote for wauns^ila as you suggest Bruce From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Nov 18 22:23:25 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:23:25 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <52F83B5C5032C8629132279E@mithun.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: [John] > It's certainly typical of Dhegiha to mark one kind of object or the > other, not both, and I had always thought the same was true also of > Dakota, barring a few marginal examples in either language. > Rephrasing this, the pattern I thought I was seeing in Siouan > languages is that their verbs code one object. Non-dative verbs - > "simple transitives" - code a patient and no uncoded dative object > nominal can be mentioned in the clause. Some kinds of more remote > objects can be introduced with locative prefixes. Dative verbs code > a dative and an uncoded patient object nominal can be included in the > clause. Most dative verbs involve some specific marker of > dativeness, which is usually manifested to some degree in a > modification of the form of explicit patient pronominals. Today's Lakota field session was the Lakota argument structure lover's paradise (or madhouse, depending on whether one judges it by its output or by the energy input required to keep one's mental focus in the face of too many person markers showing up in too many unexpected positions). First, a note on wicha-ma-k'u-pi, which I had previously glossed as 'I was given to them' or 'they gave me to them'. This example does, in fact, not prove the possibility of double object coding in transitives as clearly as I thought. My Pine Ridge speaker confirmed its grammaticality, but spontaneously provided the translation 'I was given away (in marriage)'. And I believe that this translation fits the context in which the example occurs (cf. my previous email) better than my original translation, because the extra-linguistic referent of the benefactive wicha- is not mentioned at all in the context in which the form wicha-ma-k'u-pi occurs. Which points to the possibility that wicha-, in this case, is not a referential third person marker, but rather, a marker for impersonal, i.e. the animate counterpart of wa- 'non-specific patient'. I have numerous examples suggesting that wicha- can be used that way. I know that some people on the list might feel inclined to interpret non-referential/impersonal wicha- as a valence-reducing device, rather than as a full-fledged person marker, and on this interpretation, we lose wicha- as a second object marker in wicha-ma-k'u-pi. More importantly, in trying to elicit a Linda-style example with wicha-ma-k'u-pi, I was told that only s^uNh^pala ki hena ma-k'u-pi puppy DEF those 1SG.PAT-give-PL 'they gave me those puppies' is grammatical, not, however * s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-ma-k'u-pi puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-PL 'they gave me those puppies' So right now, it doesn't look like a strong case can be made for double objects with k'u, after all. I also tried *ni-ma-k'u-pi and *ma-ni-k'upi for 'I was given to you in marriage/you were given to me�', but these combinations are not acceptable. But if the wicha-slot in the original example cannot be filled by anyhting other than wicha-, chances are that this wicha- is not a real person marker here. [Marianne] > the benefactive prefix is a benefactive applicative, a derivational > prefix that alters the argument structure of the verb stem rather > than representing an argument directly. 'Give' typically doesn't > appear with benefactive applicatives, because it already has a > beneficiary in its argument structure. Yes, that would take us closer to answering the question of why k'u 'give' seems to be the only verb that codes an (Enlgish) benefactive by means of patient affixes in Lakota. A potentially related explanation (albeit one that may be taken to merely reflect my personal obsession with Zipfian frequency approaches) is that syntactic combinations that occur frequently in discourse will be structurally less complex/less marked than less frequent ones. Since expression of the beneficiary with k'u is enormously salient in discourse, i.e. extremely frequent, with k'u, the beneficiary might be expressed by a form that is structurally less complex than "normal" benefactive forms, which contain ki-. That is, the ki-"extension" is lacking with k'u. So far, so good. Returning to the question about double object affixes in Lakota, verbs of transportation -- e.g. a'u 'bring', ahi 'take to' -- turn out to be a real treasure-trove when it comes to checking on cooccurrences of patient and benefactive markers within a single verb form. At least one relevant example was in Jan's recent post already. But there's more: s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-mic-a'u puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.BEN-bring 'he brings the puppies for me' s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-nic-a'u puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-bring 'he brings the puppies for you' s^uNkakhaN ki hena wicha-mic-ahi horse DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.BEN-take to 'he takes the horses there for me' s^uNkakhaN ki hena wicha-nic-ahi horse DEF those 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-take to 'he takes the horses there for you' Note that in all these cases, skipping wicha- also yields acceptable examples. A phonological complication in dealing with these forms lies in the fact that apparently, the final i of the benefactive markers mici-/nici- is assimilated to the adjacent verb-initial vowel a, i.e. it disappears. So given these examples, the one-affixal-object-only hypothesis can't be defended, I guess. But in fact, this hypothesis captures a strong statistical tednency because examples like the ones above are extremely infrequent in natural discourse. One factor that is quite likely to obscure the possibility of having double object affixes is the fact that at least many third person objects remain cryptic because they are coded by zero markers -- unless we're dealing with third person animate plural wicha-. Another question worth asking is if the semantic combination benefactive + patient is the only one that produces double object affix constellations in a single verb. The answer is, no, the referents of postpositional phrases may also appear as verbal affixes together with a benefactive affix. Consider: ob wicha-nici-yiN-kte with 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-go-FUT 'he'll go with them for you' ekta wicha-nici-yiN-kte to 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-go-FUT 'he'll go to them for you' Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 19 00:52:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:52:10 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041118222325.22355.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What I've noticed is the examples Regina and Neva have assembled is that what works for a two object-inflection verb is wic^ha- for a less salient object 'them' and a "speech act participant" inflection for a more salient argument, often a benefactive, but but not in the 'give in marriage' example. I think we've observed similar things in the past in other contexts. One that I recall (for OP, anyway) is that the verb embedded under the causative can take wa-, but otherwise inflection is on the causative. Regina suggests that with k?u a wic^ha- here is essentially derivational Could this maybe be argued in the other cases, too? Is there a test for derivational status? (I could use some broad hints on this in some OP contexts! So far I only know the arguments in terms of (lack of) preductivity and (lack of) predictability of the sense of the whole from the sense of the parts and statistics, which are hard to apply easily.) Actually, I think that Regina doesn't need to concede that wic^ha- is derivational in any absolute sense in any of the cases as long as it's possible to characterize it in some way as being on the boundary between derivational and inflectional, or at least as being less inflectional than mi- and ni-, etc. The synchronic argument might be in terms of ranking, along the lines that "a less salient pronominal category can only encode a less salient object." Or maybe it's "a more salient object must be encoded and can only be encoded by a more salient pronominal category." I'm trying to think of a way to preclude ni-ma- or wic^ha-wic^ha-, but allow wic^ha-ni- and wic^ha-ma-. (And where does uN(k)- fit into this?) Linda's example and its rejection by Lakota speakers confirm what David said earlier about this differing from place to place and speaker to speaker. Assiniboine and Lakota might well be entirely different in this respect. I'm always amazed when I see actual Osage, etc. The similarities to OP only make the differences more astounding. I go along thinking "Same. Same. Same. Whoa, what was that?" From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 02:50:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:50:50 -0600 Subject: PDF embedded fonts. Message-ID: Hi Corey, Can't remember exactly what I sent or was supposed to send, but here is an improved copy of the Ablaut paper. I tried reading it on my wife's computer which lacks any Siouan fonts and it looks like they embedded OK this time. Adobe Acrobat is really pretty lame at getting these things right. It's probably great for straight English prose, but phonetic symbols make it choke. I was in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago and noticed you were giving a paper on Romanian at the provincial meeting in Banff. I used to do Romanian back in the early '70's when i was a Balkanist. What was your paper about? Best, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Corey Telfer" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:18 PM Subject: Re: PDF embedded fonts. > Hi all, > > I had a bear of a time making your PDF file come out right Bob, but > eventually I made it work. The first copy I printed out had a lot of fonts > wrong, and I only figured that out because I happened to be familiar with > the words in question. I went back to the computer and eventually made it > better, but I'm still not 100% certain that I have all the right characters > in my copy. If you could provide it as a word document and provide us with > the fonts, that might work better... > > I'm sorry to hear that your house was broken into and I hope nothing too > valuable was lost. > > Corey Telfer > University of Calgary > > > > "R. Rankin" said: > > > Yes, ideally and theoretically the necessary fonts are embedded within .pdf > > documents. However, I have found that this is unfortunately not always the > > case. Any number of times I have tried to make .pdf files of certain > documents, > > especially using the IroquoianABC font which includes a lot of overstrike > > characters, and found that the resultant .pdf file did not reproduce the > fonts > > properly. It has also often been the case that material in columns gets > shifted > > around. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Nor do I know if there is a > > difference between the outcomes using "distiller" and "pdf writer" choices. > > I'll give it my best shot though. > > > > This is going to take a few days since my home was burglarized Monday and > I'm > > having to deal with a lot of unexpected paperwork. Late next week > probably. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ablaut.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 156391 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 20 10:52:57 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:52:57 +0100 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Bob, again thanks a lot for the ablaut.pdf >Dear Colleagues, I hope this Adobe .PDF file works out. I tried it out on my wife's machine, which doesn't have the Siouan fonts installed and it looked OK. You will need Courier (New). It comes with all XP machines and most older ones also. I can't guarantee anything with Macs, but if you have a Mac and the Siouan forms in the paper look like gibberish, let me know. Enjoy. Comments welcome. Bob << In total, I now seem to have three versions: the last one (of Nov. 20) looks pretty good on my Macintosh (as far I can judge Chiwere: "-ne/-na, an element indicating definite plural" - Is the n-tilde in '-ne' okay?? This is the only character I'm hesitant about.) Thanks again, I'll reread the paper now. Alfred From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Sat Nov 20 14:59:32 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:59:32 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Correct with "-n~e" but not when changed to "-na". ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Alfred W. Tüting"" To: Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 4:52 AM Subject: Ablaut paper > looks pretty good on my Macintosh (as far I can judge Chiwere: "-ne/-na, > an element indicating definite plural" - Is the n-tilde in '-ne' okay?? > This is the only character I'm hesitant about.) > Thanks again, I'll reread the paper now. > Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 15:11:23 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:11:23 -0600 Subject: PDF embedded fonts. Message-ID: This was supposed to go to Corey, not the list. Sorry to bother you guys with it. I didn't think the list took attachments though, and it seems to have gotten thru. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: PDF embedded fonts. > Hi Corey, > > Can't remember exactly what I sent or was supposed to send, but here is an > improved copy of the Ablaut paper. I tried reading it on my wife's computer > which lacks any Siouan fonts and it looks like they embedded OK this time. > Adobe Acrobat is really pretty lame at getting these things right. It's > probably great for straight English prose, but phonetic symbols make it choke. > I was in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago and noticed you were giving a paper on > Romanian at the provincial meeting in Banff. I used to do Romanian back in the > early '70's when i was a Balkanist. What was your paper about? > > Best, > > Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 16:41:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:41:24 -0600 Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. More. Message-ID: While trying to make acceptable .PDF files of some of my Siouan papers I made a couple of discoveries that may be useful to others. Some phonetic fonts can apparently be converted to .PDF by Adobe, but others cannot. The SIL Siouan Doulos seems to be OK, but the SIL Siouan Manuscript (Courier) font came out with English (?!) words in tables in which letters one space away in the alphabet were substituted for the proper spellings. It is very very strange. The abbreviation OP, for Omaha-Ponca, came out "NO" (or PQ, can't remember which). KS for Kansa came out JR or LT. Bizarre. Acrobat also chokes on the Iroquoian-ABC font, changing all sorts of things and having lots of trouble with the composite characters. It was basically unusable. Acrobat provides two choices for "creating" files (1) PDF writer, and (2) PDF distiller. The first of these doesn't seem to embed fonts for me at all. The second embeds most fonts with the caveats described above. As long as you have the phonetic fonts installed on the computer that is reading the .PDF file, everything looks just fine, but this is deceptive. If you send it to someone and they do not have the TTF fonts installed on their own machine, some of your file may look like gibberish to them. I've been sending out files for quite some time that I assumed were readable, but as it turned out, they were not. The only way to find out what your correspondent will see on the other end is to test the .PDF file you produce on a computer that has no phonetic fonts installed. If it looks OK there, it will probably be readable by anyone. Pam reports that such files can be read by Macs as well as PCs, and that was my only remaining concern. Acrobat just turns out to be a lot lamer than I had figured it was. Maybe the next generation will improve. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Sat Nov 20 17:34:29 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:34:29 EST Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. More. Message-ID: Bob, The problem with embedding fonts may be the result of the .pdf file creator you are using. There is a free program for creating .pdf files that I have been using that embeds IroquoianABC fonts quite nicely. I have been using it for exchanging files with a number of people. The program is called PdfCreator and is available as a free download from _http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator_ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator) or from _http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm_ (http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm) . The only restriction is that the receiver of the file must have Acrobat 5.0 or higher (i.e one of the more recent editions) to read the file. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 20 18:50:33 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:50:33 +0100 Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. Macintosh Message-ID: >The problem with embedding fonts may be the result of the .pdf file creator you are using. There is a free program for creating .pdf files that I have been using that embeds IroquoianABC fonts quite nicely. I have been using it for exchanging files with a number of people. The program is called PdfCreator and is available as a free download from http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator or from http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm. The only restriction is that the receiver of the file must have Acrobat 5.0 or higher (i.e one of the more recent editions) to read the file.<< Whereas the 1st URL is talking of 'window'-applications (only?), the 2nd one is giving hope to MacOS users! See the German version and its TV report (=Kurztest) http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/berichte_ndr.htm telling that it'd be still easier with Mac providing the possibility to generate the PDF-file directly from the operating system i.e. without the need for any add-on program. Alfred From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 21 03:37:29 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:37:29 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: Hi all, I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have data on right now are Hiraca cakaka and Hocak waniNk. I don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? Just from what I have so far, it looks like the Biloxi (B) and Ofo (O) words are definitely cognate, but I'm not so sure they're cognate with Hiraca and Hocak. Also, the B and O words appear possibly cognate with Cherokee tsiskwa. (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O perhaps through borrowing.) Any info, thoughts, or comments are greatly appreciated! Thanks. (BTW--Checked with Pam Munro on Muskogean. She specifically cited Chickasaw foshi' for bird, which is apparently similar to other Muskogean languages as well, so there doesn't appear to be any Muskogean influence on B and O in this case.) Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shanwest at shaw.ca Sun Nov 21 05:33:57 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:33:57 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David Kaufman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for > 'bird', *kudeska* and *teska*, respectively, are cognate with other > Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have > data on right now are Hiraca *cakaka* and Hocak *waniNk*. I > don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language > words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? Assiniboine for 'bird' is sitkaN. Shannon From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 21 10:55:45 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?Big5?B?IkFsZnJlZCBXLiBUdSJ0aW5nIg==?=) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:55:45 +0100 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: > am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have data on right now are Hiraca cakaka and Hocak waniNk. I don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? [...]<< Dakota/Lakota bird is _zitkala_/'zintkala' [ziNtka'la] - apparently a diminutive form so maybe formerly used for 'small birds'? (Cf. Chinese 'birds' (BIG5) 鳥雀 niao3que4 lit.: bird-sparrow (with niao having the ancient meaning of bigger/long-tailed bird whereas the character 雀 is composed by 小 xiao3 small and 隹 zhui1 'short-tailed bird'.) Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun Nov 21 16:23:47 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:23:47 -0500 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'll add to Shannon's contribution by adding another form widely attested in Assiniboine, namely, zitka'na ~ ziNtka'na (bearing in mind that when it - or any vowel-final word - is said in isolation the final vowel is whispered). My primary consultant's Indian name is Zitka'na tho wiNyaN 'Bluebird Woman'. Linda From rankin at ku.edu Sun Nov 21 16:42:58 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:58 -0600 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: > I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. Just from what I have so far, it looks like the Biloxi (B) and Ofo (O) words are definitely cognate, but I'm not so sure they're cognate with Hiraca and Hocak. Also, the B and O words appear possibly cognate with Cherokee tsiskwa. The B&O forms are isolated within Siouan and could stem from eariler Proto-B&O *reska or maybe *teska. You also want to include the Ofo term /tefka/ (the expected outcome of *reska) in your calculations. Biloxi and Ofo /s/ shouldn't actually correspond (in Ofo *s > f generally). That alone should make you suspicious of these forms and suggest that you're dealing with a borrowing. This tends to be confirmed by the Ofo doublets. The forms also mean 'flea' (or other insectoid vermin), so, from a semantic point of view, they may be following the usage found in Dakotan, where small birds are referred to as "tree fleas". But the Dakotan terms are transparent compounds and not at all cognate with B&O -- just the metaphor is common. The final evidence for the status of the Biloxi and Ofo bird terms comes from (a) the Cherokee term, which you've already discovered, and (b) the Koasati term /tiskahomma/ 'cardinal, redbird', where /homma/ is pan-Muskogean for 'red'. That leaves Koasati /tiska/, Cherokee /tsiskwa/, Biloxi /deska ~ teska/ and Ofo /teska ~ tefka/ representing a Southeastern diffused term. I don't know that we had noticed the Cherokee term before, so congratulations on finding a new item that tends to confirm the areal nature of this term. Bob From shanwest at shaw.ca Sun Nov 21 21:35:57 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:35:57 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <1101054227.41a0c1134bd8c@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: >I'll add to Shannon's contribution by adding another form widely attested in >Assiniboine, namely, zitka'na ~ ziNtka'na (bearing in mind that when it - or any >vowel-final word - is said in isolation the final vowel is whispered). My >primary consultant's Indian name is Zitka'na tho wiNyaN 'Bluebird Woman'. > >Linda > > > Yep yep. I have the first consonant as both z and s from different speakers. Sometimes I hear it almost as a [ts] which is really odd. ZitkaN + na I have as a diminutive form, but I've doubted that for a while already. One of these days, I'd really like to look into that -na ending. :) Shannon From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun Nov 21 23:53:03 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:53:03 -0800 Subject: Northern Iroquoian bird In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In answer to Dave's question, although I haven't made a thorough comparative study of this, I think one can reconstruct a Proto-Northern-Iroquoian noun root *-tsi?t- for "bird". The ts usually comes out as a voiced palatal affricate, so this is pronounced more like -ji?t-. I'm using ? for a glottal stop. I suspect that the *tsi part is cognate between PNI and Cherokee. Wally > (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' > from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed > Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O > perhaps through borrowing.) From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Nov 22 00:11:49 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:11:49 -0800 Subject: Northern Iroquoian and Algonquian bird Message-ID: Interesting. This immediately reminds me of the Mahican (Hudson Valley, Algonquian) form for 'bird', which appears to phonemically be something like /ci:htsi:s/ or /ci:htci:s/ ('c' = c-hacek). This also appears in Mohegan (southeast Connecticut) as /cits/, tho given the usual total lack of borrowing betwen Algonquian and Iroquoian, I'm inclined to attribute it to onomatopoeia in both families. David Costa > In answer to Dave's question, although I haven't made a thorough > comparative study of this, I think one can reconstruct a > Proto-Northern-Iroquoian noun root *-tsi?t- for "bird". The ts usually > comes out as a voiced palatal affricate, so this is pronounced more like > -ji?t-. I'm using ? for a glottal stop. I suspect that the *tsi part is > cognate between PNI and Cherokee. Wally >> (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' >> from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed >> Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O >> perhaps through borrowing.) From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 03:31:11 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:31:11 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: >>From Wally's and David's postings, it looks as though the Cherokee form isn't a part of the SE set after all. Just the forms with initial /t/ or /d/. I had thought maybe Cherokee had assibilated a /t/ in their form, but it's likely part of a larger Iroquoian cognate set, and perhaps part of the affricate and high front vowel sound symbolism discussed by Sapir in his journal of psychology paper and rediscovered by Greenberg later and published in the Stanford U. Working Papers in Linguistic Universals about 30 yrs. ago. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 18:24:12 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:24:12 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <0b3a01c4d043$bc1d0060$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: >>From Wally's and David's postings, it looks as though the Cherokee form isn't a part of the SE set after all. Just the forms with initial /t/ or /d/. I had thought maybe Cherokee had assibilated a /t/ in their form, but it's likely part of a larger Iroquoian cognate set, and perhaps part of the affricate and high front vowel sound symbolism discussed by Sapir in his journal of psychology paper and rediscovered by Greenberg later and published in the Stanford U. Working Papers in Linguistic Universals about 30 yrs. ago. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 19:59:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:59:29 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <20041122182413.39357.qmail@web53801.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, David Kaufman wrote: > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this > term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their > words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing > would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, > and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure > why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the > Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther > from Cherokee than the others. Biloxi may have moved further south in the 1600s, from an earlier position closer to the Ohio. Conceivably its areal influences antedate (or at least began before) it's more southerly location. The same applies to Ofo. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 21:19:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:19:04 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Moreover, the Koasatis were likely in touch with Cherokee at some point, but Biloxi and Ofo weren't as far as anyone can tell. The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other languages. Also Atakapa, Chitimacha, Natchez, Tunica and what exists of the Florida languages like Timucua. The ultimate source of "wanderwoerter" is often very hard to pin down. Bob > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 21:21:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:21:46 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Evidence for the Ofo is that they came down the Mississippi, but the point of diffusion for Ohio Valley Siouan is unknown. The best guess is West Virginia somewhere. Biloxi routes are simply unknown. > Biloxi may have moved further south in the 1600s, from an earlier position > closer to the Ohio. Conceivably its areal influences antedate (or at > least began before) it's more southerly location. The same applies to > Ofo. From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 22:17:21 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:17:21 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: -- so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't.-- I did have a problem with the lack of affricate in Siouan and Koasati. Close but no cigar, I guess! (But fun trying nonetheless!) Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Moreover, the Koasatis were likely in touch with Cherokee at some point, but Biloxi and Ofo weren't as far as anyone can tell. The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other languages. Also Atakapa, Chitimacha, Natchez, Tunica and what exists of the Florida languages like Timucua. The ultimate source of "wanderwoerter" is often very hard to pin down. Bob > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 22 22:51:27 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:51:27 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I > only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other > languages. Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 23:21:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:21:01 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <41A26D6F.3030104@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise > 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue > jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. > > Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin > s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. > > These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would represent that. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 23:31:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:31:03 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very > much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the > affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other > SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and > that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both > of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Cherokee has tsiskwa 'bird' per David and Wally indicates that "Proto-Northern-Iroquoian {has a] noun root *-tsi?t- for 'bird'" and that the *tsi part of this is probably cognate with the Cherokee form, but he didn't actually say that the Proto-Iroquoian would be *tsi. Remembering that affrication is often a parallel shift, and knowing essentially nothing about Proto-Iroquoian (or recent Iroquoian), Northern or Southern or combined, I was wondering if were possible that affrication were fairly recent in at least the Cherokee case. I agree that it seems more like that a ts would be borrowed as c^, otherwise, given Muskogean and Biloxi phonology. From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon Nov 22 23:48:53 2004 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:48:53 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That tsi- looks like the trace of a very old morpheme, no longer generally segmentable and certainly not productive, that appears in numerous terms for birds, bugs, and other such things. The -?t actually matches in form a common nominalizer in the modern languages (which also systematically match instrumental applicatives and causatives). So though this form is not synchronically analyzable, I'd say there's good evidence that it was once segmentable. The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsiskó:ko. Marianne --On Monday, November 22, 2004 4:31 PM -0700 Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very >> much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the >> affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other >> SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and >> that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both >> of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. > > Cherokee has tsiskwa 'bird' per David and Wally indicates that > "Proto-Northern-Iroquoian {has a] noun root *-tsi?t- for 'bird'" and that > the *tsi part of this is probably cognate with the Cherokee form, but he > didn't actually say that the Proto-Iroquoian would be *tsi. Remembering > that affrication is often a parallel shift, and knowing essentially > nothing about Proto-Iroquoian (or recent Iroquoian), Northern or Southern > or combined, I was wondering if were possible that affrication were fairly > recent in at least the Cherokee case. > > I agree that it seems more like that a ts would be borrowed as c^, > otherwise, given Muskogean and Biloxi phonology. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Nov 23 00:54:20 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:54:20 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise >>'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue >>jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. >> >>Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin >>s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. >> >>These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. > > > This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of > the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for > 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a > jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would > represent that. I think at least the ta- part might be onomatopoeic. (BTW, Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay.) I connect rusty hinges with blackbirds (esp. redwings). Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 23 07:06:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:06:27 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <24210140.1101138533@[192.168.2.40]> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Marianne Mithun wrote: > The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond > for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. > Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsiskó:ko. Or Osage s^iNkkokkoke 'robin', cf. the robin's alarm call, characterized in birding guides as teek-tuk-tuk. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 23 07:31:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:31:19 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <41A28A3C.20600@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > > This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of > > the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for > > 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a > > jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would > > represent that. > > I think at least the ta- part might be onomatopoeic. (BTW, Ojibway has > di:ndi:si for blue jay.) I guess it's possible. Winnebago j^eej^ec^(?e); IO c^he taiN 'jay; three buffaloes'; Osage kkittanika. Other terms are descriptive, e.g., Dakotan ziNtkatho(gleglegha) '(spotted) blue bird', or mysterious, e.g., OP iNc^haN'ga giu'daN 'fond of mice'. The "jay" call when loud is apparently a mobbing call, but also used in courtship in a softer version. > I connect rusty hinges with blackbirds (esp. redwings). That I do know how to represent! In OP you find maNgdhiNxta 'red-wing blackbird'. There a series of "comparable" forms in Northern Iroquoian, too. That is, they resemble each other and the redwing's alarm call, but not the OP form. The Iroquoian versions - which I forget - are rather like the version in the bird guides - okalee.) The jay's rusty hinge call is involved in courtship and is described in my birding guide as the "wheedelee" call. (The guide I'm using is Stokes - A Guide to the Behavior of Common Birds.) From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Nov 23 13:48:14 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:48:14 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 14:59:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:59:50 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Win a few, lose a few. That's the sport of it. Animal/bird names are good places to look for borrowings though. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kaufman" To: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:17 PM Subject: Re: bird. > -- so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't.-- I did have a problem with the lack of affricate in Siouan and Koasati. Close but no cigar, I guess! (But fun trying nonetheless!) From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:07:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:07:56 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: I agree that some element of sound symbolism may be involved, especially with the Iroquoian/Algonquian similarity with this term. But it doesn't preclude borrowing, and, in fact, probably renders diffusion more likely. I'm not so sure about the words with /t/ rather than /c/ and I'm not convinced by the specific Alabama "explanation". If it were accurate, why isn't the Ala. form /*ciskomma/?? And I always thought Cardinals said "Gwitsi, gwitsi, gwitsi" . . . . :-) bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan H. Hartley" To: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: bird. > > The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I > > only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other > > languages. > > Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise > 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue > jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. > > Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin > s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. > > These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. > > Alan > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:13:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:13:21 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: > The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond > for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. > Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsiskó:ko. Robin . . . now there's a term that has overlapping phonemes sets all over the place. Especially the -koko part is found all over the East. But parts of it are unidentifiable in each family. You can make a looooong list with that one! Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:18:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:18:38 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: > Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay. Looks like one of the Dakotan forms in tiN-, doesn't it?? Like I said, bird names are somewhat similar all over the place. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:38:14 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:38:14 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: There are a couple of 'hawk' terms reconstructible in Proto-Siouan. *kyetaN is one of them. The Dhegiha cognate set is from intermediate *kretaN. I've left off accent 'cause I can't remember off the top of my head where it is, but I think it's on the 1st syllable, so it may have a long V. This term seems to have been a common medium sized raptor. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "REGINA PUSTET" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:48 AM Subject: Re: bird. > How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? > > Regina > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Nov 23 15:46:28 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:46:28 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <00cc01c4d16e$37aa9370$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > And I always thought Cardinals said "Gwitsi, gwitsi, gwitsi" . . Cf. Ojibway gijigijiga:neshi:N [j affricate, sh fricative] 'chickadee.' I suppose it's onomatopoeic, though it doesn't sound much like "chickadee-dee-dee," which is a very good likeness. (I should note that the Ojibway words I've cited are Southwestern dialect from Nichols & Nyholm _Concise Dict. of Minnesota Ojibwe_.) And Oj. gwi:ngwi:shi: [vowel-length uncertain] 'Canada (gray) jay, whiskeyjack' (inferred from gwingwishi 'a kind of small magpie' in Baraga _Dict. Otchipwe Lang._, Southwestern dial.) Gwi:ngwi:sh is 'blue jay' in Rhodes _Eastern Ojibwa_, which confirms my length guesses for Baraga's first two vowels.) Sorry--not Siouan. Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 15:57:44 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:57:44 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <00ee01c4d16f$b6695d30$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay. > > Looks like one of the Dakotan forms in tiN-, doesn't it?? Like I said, bird > names are somewhat similar all over the place. > Related Miami-Illinois has /teenteekihsa/ (and plover /teentia/). Given the blue jays raucous voice, an onomotopeic origin is somewhat expected. (The blue jay actually has a very chime- or bell-like call, too.) Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 16:01:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:01:37 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <012201c4d172$745968b0$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: It's difficult not to see some sort of similarity between that an Proto-Algonquian /kinliwa/ 'golden eagle', a term where that /-l-/ went to /t/ in some languages, such as Fox /kitiwa/ and Miami-Illinois /kintiwa/. Michael On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > There are a couple of 'hawk' terms reconstructible in Proto-Siouan. *kyetaN is > one of them. The Dhegiha cognate set is from intermediate *kretaN. I've left > off accent 'cause I can't remember off the top of my head where it is, but I > think it's on the 1st syllable, so it may have a long V. This term seems to > have been a common medium sized raptor. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "REGINA PUSTET" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:48 AM > Subject: Re: bird. > > > > How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? > > > > Regina > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 17:51:57 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:51:57 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > It's difficult not to see some sort of similarity between that an > Proto-Algonquian /kinliwa/ 'golden eagle', a term where that /-l-/ went to > /t/ in some languages, such as Fox /kitiwa/ and Miami-Illinois /kintiwa/. > Michael Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 24 00:04:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. So we're comparing something like Fox ke tiwa P(MV?)S *kyetaN or PA *kenliwa P(MV?)S *kyetaN That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey and later there's only gdhebaN. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Nov 24 00:18:49 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:18:49 -0800 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Can *kyetaN be reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Siouan, or only Proto-Mississippi Valley? David > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. > > So we're comparing something like > > Fox ke tiwa > P(MV?)S *kyetaN > > or > > PA *kenliwa > P(MV?)S *kyetaN > > That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly > irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h > for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da > c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently > involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two > others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. > I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. > > Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey > and later there's only gdhebaN. > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 24 00:59:53 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:59:53 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Da > c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently > involved. So the proto-form has a k. What a pity. I brought up chetaN 'hawk' because I thought it might be intriguingly close to roots such as tsi[?t] 'bird' in Iroquoian, which was mentioned earlier in the discussion. But then, I have never done reconstruction, so this might be just a wild guess. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 24 14:07:31 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:07:31 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Algonquian eagles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, I agree with you that it's a stretch, trying to connect these old Proto-Siouan and Proto-Algonquian terms for "golden eagle". Is the Proto-Siouan form analyzable? The Proto-Algonquian form seems to hint at the notion "high," but that's just a hint. :) Michael From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 24 15:30:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:30:41 -0600 Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: There seem to be Mandan and Biloxi cognates, but, as John says, there are interesting irregularities. *kyetaN seems to be composed of at least two and perhaps more morphemes. It represents a medium-sized hawk or falcon (Buteo). There is another word for the largest hawk, tho', as I recall, it too has the rare *ky cluster. From my own point of view, ANY Siouan stem that begins with a *kC cluster is liable to be historically bimorphemic. K-clusters are inherently suspicious in Siouan as there are so many different prefixes in K that tend to lose vowels by syncope and form clusters. We don't seem to have Crow or Hidatsa cognates for the 'hawk' sets, so proto-Siouan could be questioned, but the Biloxi and Mandan forms make it very old, however far back that takes us. Crow and Hidatsa are probably worth another search. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:18 PM Subject: Re: bird. > Can *kyetaN be reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Siouan, or only > Proto-Mississippi Valley? > > David > > > >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >>> Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. >> >> So we're comparing something like >> >> Fox ke tiwa >> P(MV?)S *kyetaN >> >> or >> >> PA *kenliwa >> P(MV?)S *kyetaN >> >> That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly >> irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h >> for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da >> c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently >> involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two >> others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. >> I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. >> >> Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey >> and later there's only gdhebaN. >> > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 02:11:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:11:12 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: <00af01c4d23a$a2623de0$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > There seem to be Mandan and Biloxi cognates, but, as John says, there > are interesting irregularities. *kyetaN seems to be composed of at > least two and perhaps more morphemes. It represents a medium-sized hawk > or falcon (Buteo). There is another word for the largest hawk, tho', as > I recall, it too has the rare *ky cluster. PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' Ma titaNhe 'hawk' Da c^hetaN' 'hawk' OP gdhe'daN 'hawk' OS letaN' Ks ledaN' Qu kde'taN IO greduN' 'hawk' Wi kerejuN'(sep) '(Black)hawk' Bi *kyetoNhi 'duck hawk' PS *kyaNs^ka' 'hawk' Da c^haNs^ka' 'large hawk' OP gdhaNs^ka' Qu xnaNs^ka' (kn, not xn, expected) Bi *kiyaNska' 'marsh hawk' PMV *rukyaN' 'think' Da yukc^aN 'to comprehend' OP i'dhigdhaN 'to decide' IO iirugraN 'to think' WI rukaNraN' 'to manage' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 17:00:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:00:48 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just dashed this off over the weekend without thinking much about it, to provide the forms supporting Bob's comment. The material is from the CSD draft, of course, but with one change and some omissions of Southeastern forms that might not fit as well. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' > > Ma titaNhe 'hawk' (Ma ti- : PS *kye- not otherwise attested) ... (the uN vowels in IO and Wi are unexpected) > Bi *kyetoNhi 'duck hawk' (maybe oN is unexpected) I added the *-h(e) on my own authority, based on the Mandan and Biloxi forms. I suspect it's just an h-final stem. That is, some CVC-stems are CVh-stems. The editors have been coming to grips with these in the course of the editing. This element of Siouan morphology was a discovery of CSD editors I believe. I'm not sure who recognized what, except in one detail. The *-h(e) is usually lost pretty much everywhere in such stems, but traces can remain in Crow-Hidatsa, e.g., Crow final diphthongs -ia and -ua where intervocalic h is lost (no CH forms attested for this stem); in Mandan, e.g., -h resurfacing with some noun stems before what I might call the absolute marker -e; in Mississippi Valley if -ka follows, yielding, e.g., Da -kha, OP -kka, IO -khe, Wi -ke, from *-h-ka. The behavior of *-h-ka was, I think, first noted by Bob Rankin. In this case it appears that Biloxi follows the Mandan pattern. I'm not sure if this has been noticed in a Biloxi form before, and so, perhaps, I have misanalyzed the behavior here. I love the *-h-ka forms because they help confirm that *-a > -e / [velar]__## occurs in Winnebago as well as Ioway-Otoe, even though most final -e are later lost there. Biloxi does have final -i in various contexts that behaves like the -e increments to stems elsewhere. Particularly widespread is -di < *-r-e where presumably the *r is epenthetic. This is something noted by Dick Carter early on. I don't recall whether he felt *r was epenthetic or organic. I think everyone who has pondered the matter has argued either way at various times. At the moment I favor epenthetic myself. Carter compared Biloxi -di to the underlying -r that resurfaces before -e in some Mandan nouns. In Mandan some superficially V-final nouns add -re to form the absolute, just as some add -he (per the above) or -?e or -r?e. A similar -r appears with some verb stems when the declarative -o?s^ is added, etc., and -di appears with both nouns and verbs in Biloxi as far as I can recall at the moment without looking. The following was the other 'hawk' form that Bob and I remembered, he apparently in more detail than I. > PS *kyaNs^ka' 'hawk' > > Da c^haNs^ka' 'large hawk' > > OP gdhaNs^ka' > Qu xnaNs^ka' (kn, not xn, expected) > > Bi *kiyaNska' 'marsh hawk' (s^ka, not ska, expected) This is unusual in that the initial *kyV- has a kiyV reflex in Biloxi. This obviously recalls the verb 'to fly'. This set has a number of irregularities in it. The final stress seems a bit odd to me, too. Final -ka in this stem doesn't behave at all like the -ka formant rather common in terms for animals, etc., in various Siouan languages. The following is just an example of *ky in another context. > PMV *rukyaN' 'think' > > Da yukc^aN 'to comprehend' > > OP i'dhigdhaN 'to decide' > > IO iirugraN 'to think' > WI rukaNraN' 'to manage' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 21:00:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:00:22 -0700 Subject: PMV Nasal Vowel Correspondences (Re: Hawk.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' > ... (the uN vowels in IO and Wi are unexpected) Except for the *a > e shift in Winnebago and Ioway-Otoe in final position after velars and the various vexed final-position sets due to morphology, Siouan vowel correspondences are pretty much whatever > same thing. This is certainly very odd from a perspective of European linguistic history! The main exception is the Great Dhegiha Vowel Shift (to invent a name for it) in which u > u-umlaut (Osage, Kaw) > i (OP, Quapaw), and o > u (OP). In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. There some tendency for initial o > u in IO and Quapaw, too, if I remember correctly. As far as Dorsey is concerned *aN, *uN > aN, too. In some sources this merged vowel is written oN and it is perhaps dialect-variable, certainly language variable. More recent scholars (Rankin, Quintero) have noticed that there may actually be some degree of aN : oN contrast in at least Kaw and Osage, presumably recording *aN : *uN. Some of this coincided with x vs. gh effects on neighboring vowels in OP, but maybe not all of it. There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern peripheries, too, I guess. However, there are also some oddities like the *kyetVNh-e 'small hawk' set. Normally, thanks to the GDVS for PMV : Da : Dh : WiIO we get *aN : aN : aN : aN and *uN : uN : aN : uN, but there are a few cases of *??? : aN : aN : uN as in this set, e.g., PS *kyetuN(he) : Da c^hetaN : OP gdhedaN : IO greduN. Note that the -d- in the IO form is one of those generally written with the letter t. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 29 23:28:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:28:29 -0600 Subject: Vowel Correspondences Message-ID: At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian either directly or indirectly. > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter case is analogical rather than phonological though. > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > peripheries, too, I guess. Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to vowel length. In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Nov 30 17:03:27 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:03:27 EST Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: I've found two stems meaning 'hawk' in Crow, one of which has two variants: c^ilaxc^i' 'hawk' (my data) c^ilaxta' 'hawk' (Dictionary of Everyday Crow) issaxc^i' 'sparrow hawk, falcon' It seems to me that c^il- could easily be derived from kye-, but I don't know about the rest of it. Maybe the xc^ cluster was simplified in the rest of Siouan. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 30 17:41:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:41:29 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > c^ilaxc^i' 'hawk' (my data) > c^ilaxta' 'hawk' (Dictionary of Everyday Crow) > issaxc^i' 'sparrow hawk, falcon' > > It seems to me that c^il- could easily be derived from kye-, but I don't know > about the rest of it. Maybe the xc^ cluster was simplified in the rest of > Siouan. I think Crow c^i is usually from *ki, right? So then this suggests something like *kira-, which would make sense for the first syllable. My initial instinct with xc^i/xta is that it looks a lot like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic in MVS, etc. I'm don't recall if that occurs in Crow-Hidatsa. But I would expect something like -ta or -tu - can't remember how *t comes out before *u! - for *-taN or *-tuN. And then maybe -a for *-he? So, for *kyetVNh-e something like *c^ilata(a) or *c^ilatua? I don't see how to work the xt/xc^, even with simplification elsewhere. Too bad it's not ht/hc^! Then some kind of metathesis might be conceivable. Note, however, that the notes to the CSD entry talk about the hawk stem maybe involving several roots compounded together. Would issa- be from *ikta- or *ihta-? I think the *kira- probably fits better, but obviously this isn't impossible either. How about 'think'? I should look at the CSD draft to see if Crow-Hidatsa has any *py set forms. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 30 17:19:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:19:31 -0700 Subject: Vowel Correspondences In-Reply-To: <005a01c4d66b$34d67090$01b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that > comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian > either directly or indirectly. Of course, I also wonder about 'hawk' in the same sense, though I do doubt 'hawk' is a loanword. Could wagmu(N) ~ wamna(N) reflect an internal avoidance of {w, m} + u(N)? > > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. > > These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is > the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that > peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter > case is analogical rather than phonological though. The benefactive is one example. Analogy could definitely play a role there. I'll see if I can locate another. I kind of think there were some. > > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > > peripheries, too, I guess. > > Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and > changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to > vowel length. That's what I recall, too. > In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. > Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is > an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is > always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to > write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Hmm. Rory, would this tie in with your variant e's? > Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of > years back in Rapid City. Spearfish? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 30 19:11:12 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:11:12 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: >> In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our >> speakers insist that the sequence >> >> *uNk-o'-[root] >> >> should be pronounced >> >> ugu'-[root], >> >> not >> >> aNgu'-[root] > > Interesting! No perceptible nasalization? Alright, I'm going to have to backpedal a little bit here. Of our two speakers, one prefers aNgu'-[root], while the other accepts either but seems to favor ugu'-[root]. However, when ugu'-[root] is used, the initial vowel seems to me to be clearly [u], with no perceptible nasalization. Perhaps this is just a bleeding of the accented second syllable vowel into the unaccented first syllable, as seems to happen in several similar morphological situations: *u-aN'-[root] => aNwaN'-[root] *u-iN'-[root] => iNwiN'-[root] *i-o'-[root] => udhu'-[root] *i-aN'-[root] => aNdhaN'-[root] In these cases, the original first vowel is marked by its consonantal epenthesis (u- => @w-; i- => @dh-), but was originally in [vowel] + [vowel] position. But for *uNk-u'-[root] => aNgu'-[root] => ugu'-[root], the vowel leveling has to jump a stop consonant. Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 19:41:52 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:41:52 -0800 Subject: Vowel Correspondences In-Reply-To: <005a01c4d66b$34d67090$01b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Hi Bob, -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? Was it published? Thanks, Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian either directly or indirectly. > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter case is analogical rather than phonological though. > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > peripheries, too, I guess. Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to vowel length. In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Nov 30 20:42:01 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:42:01 EST Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: In a message dated 11/30/2004 10:48:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: I think Crow c^i is usually from *ki, right? So then this suggests something like *kira-, which would make sense for the first syllable. Yes, c^ could be from *ki, although it could also correspond to Hidatsa ts, which I believe reflects PS *s. My initial instinct with xc^i/xta is that it looks a lot like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic in MVS, etc. I'm don't recall if that occurs in Crow-Hidatsa. But I would expect something like -ta or -tu - can't remember how *t comes out before *u! - for *-taN or *-tuN. And then maybe -a for *-he? So, for *kyetVNh-e something like *c^ilata(a) or *c^ilatua? I don't see how to work the xt/xc^, even with simplification elsewhere. Too bad it's not ht/hc^! Then some kind of metathesis might be conceivable. Crow doesn't have anything like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic. *tuN would come out as s^u in Crow. Note, however, that the notes to the CSD entry talk about the hawk stem maybe involving several roots compounded together. That is a possibility. c^i- corresponds to one of the many ki's (dative, etc.) in MVS. c^i-laxchi could mean something like 'wrap up one's own', or 'one's own wrapped up or bound'. (c^i- would be a possessive reflexive prefix here.) But that analysis doesn't make much sense to me semantically for a bird term, and it think it is worthwhile to at least pursue the notion that c^ilaxchi' is a basic stem rather than a composite stem. Would issa- be from *ikta- or *ihta-? I think the *kira- probably fits better, but obviously this isn't impossible either. Yes, issa- could be from *ikta- or *ihta. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 21:54:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:54:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo Message-ID: > -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern > areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on > "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme > /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas > mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she > says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position. I can't remember if the speakers who did that were from Oklahoma or from Mississippi. My recollection is that the Mobilian Trade Jargon had lots of examples too -- and that's probably the vehicle by which most of the diffusion took place in the lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas. > -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that > little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in > Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? > Was it published? Not yet, although a version will presumably appear in the proceedings of last April's LAVIS meeting in Tuscaloosa. I can mail a preliminary version of the Ofo dict. revision with phonemicizations and a morphosyntax summary. Some of the words in the dict. are still in the orthographic alphabetical order established by Swanton, but I added vowel length from his manuscript card file at the Smithsonian. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 22:25:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:25:24 -0600 Subject: Biloxi, Ofo, Tutelo-Saponi, Monyton, etc. Message-ID: I just yesterday received a copy of the brand new Southeast volume on the Handbook of North American Indians from the Smithsonian. It has interesting articles on Ohio Valley Siouan including culture, archaeology, linguistics, locations, etc. Catawban is, of course, also covered, thanks to Blair. I think this may be the thickest single volume yet published in the series (although the broke the Plains and SW into 2 vols. each). There's also a previously unpublished photo of Rosa Pierrite (which they are now spelling to match the Cajun pronunciation), the last known speaker of Ofo, which was nice to see. (The photo of her in the old Swanton survey made her look like Aunt Jemimah (spelling?) about to whup up a mess o' pancakes). This one is much clearer and less stereotyped. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 22:32:39 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:32:39 -0800 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo In-Reply-To: <006801c4d727$2c947640$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: -- I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position.-- Yes, just reread the article where Haas states that the allophone [e] for 'i' occurs with length and in utterance final position before glottal stop. I don't think this was mentioned by Dorsey in the dictionary however. Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: > -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern > areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on > "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme > /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas > mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she > says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position. I can't remember if the speakers who did that were from Oklahoma or from Mississippi. My recollection is that the Mobilian Trade Jargon had lots of examples too -- and that's probably the vehicle by which most of the diffusion took place in the lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas. > -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that > little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in > Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? > Was it published? Not yet, although a version will presumably appear in the proceedings of last April's LAVIS meeting in Tuscaloosa. I can mail a preliminary version of the Ofo dict. revision with phonemicizations and a morphosyntax summary. Some of the words in the dict. are still in the orthographic alphabetical order established by Swanton, but I added vowel length from his manuscript card file at the Smithsonian. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 22:59:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:59:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo Message-ID: > . . .Haas states that the allophone [e] for 'i' occurs with length and in > utterance final position before glottal stop. I don't think this was > mentioned by Dorsey in the dictionary however. No, Dorsey always writes the length distinction as if it were a quality distinction. No one has had the courage to undertake a complete analysis of JOD's use of the breve and other vowel diacritics (it would be a massive undertaking). But in Biloxi, it may make a tremendous difference. All linguists since Dorsey have already screwed up Biloxi by collapsing the two series of stops, and I'm afraid the vowels are no different. It is especially important in the SE, where [e] is an allophone of /i/ and [epsilon] is an allophone of /e/, to figure out JOD's transcription. As a starting point, I'd look for his to represent short /e/. Then his with no diacritics will be either [+long] or an allophone of /i/ (or both, unfortunately). But there are other E's (e.g., with circumflex) to deal with too. Haas's comment about [e] representing long /i:/ I find especially interesting, because I think the Ofo rule is the same, and I hadn't reread Haas when doing my Ofo analysis. I'll double check. Thanx for the tip. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 1 17:16:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:16:57 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > CQ: In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the other > hand, is either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel is not > long, or at least is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I don't write > 'rain' with a long vowel. > > RLR: Ditto in Kansa. naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second > accented) nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as in French) > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after mulling > it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable in naNz^iN', > 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? I hope the non-Dhegihanists and non-comparativists on the list will excuse us as we wrestle with this single form and what must seem like something we ought to know by now! Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't! It's really important for those of us working with Omaha - and in a larger sense Dhegiha - to understand how the phonology of forms like this works! I have the impression that Bob is saying that these forms in Kaw, modulo vowels, contrast CVVCV' and CVCV', whereas Carolyn is mentioning CVVCV (CVV'CV?) and CV'CV. Rory seems to have CVVCV' and CVCV'. I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! It strikes me that it would be a bit odd for there to be second syllable accent if this was the third mora. Of course, I'm not positive that "second mora" accent survives the discovery of vowel length, but I suspect there is something in it, as it works so well in accounting for patterns in both Dakotan and Winnebago, albeit in the former case the rule is somewhat discretized by the absence of vowel length, and in the latter case it only appears if you reverse a couple of major sound changes, "in underlying forms." I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! Just out of curiosity, Rory - or anyone, for that matter - what is the pitch contour of naNaNz^iN in Omaha or anywhere else, not necessarily in Dhegiha? I'm wondering, frankly, if the pitch contour isn't H H L naNaNz^iN Is there any trace of falling pitch on the final syllable? H H HL naNaNz^iN I always thought I tended to hear some bisyllabic H L forms as finally accented, though I think that they should really be classed as initially accented. I'd expect pattern one above with initial accent and pattern two with final accent. The fall might be absent, however, in cases where something additional followed, e.g., H H H? H? L naNaNz^iN=i(N)=the It might also be difficult to judge length, if the basis for the judgement was relative length and the form in question had an underlying plural/proximate =i that was deleted finally with, say, compensatory lengthening of the final syllable. This might be controlled for by looking at a form that moved the plural/proximate slot to a later position, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=naN=(i) or didn't require it, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=akHa. And, of course, in =i=the, the =i should resurface. Still another way of controlling which is not an option here is that ablauting final reveals whether the form under consideration has =i by changing -e to -a. If you ask for a form like "to walk" or "walking," it's not necessarily clear what you'd get in a language that lacks infinitives (?) and/or may not have a standard citation form. In fact, it might also be worth looking at your perception of length in a cross-section of forms: first, second, third, inclusive and also imperative and "embedded" under a governing predicate. The personal forms won't work with 'rain', of course! But I think we tend to make the simplifying assumption that length is constant. A good deal might actually depend on factors like inflection or foot structure. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 1 18:33:51 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:33:51 -0600 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' Message-ID: There are a lot of remaining questions. A full fledged reanalysis of accent and length has to be done. The answers won't be simple exactly because of verbs like naaNz^iN 'stand'. Historically it is probably bimorphemic, or, at the very least, susceptible of being folk etymologized as such, since the two parts have discernable meanings: na- 'on foot' and z^iN 'erect'. How are such compounds treated accentually? Or if they're thought of as monomorphemic, is the accent different? No easy answers here. Also, are speakers accustomed to listening for length in unaccented syllables? These are just a few of the imponderables. It's up to us to sort them out. Bob > CQ: In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the > other hand, is either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel > is not long, or at least is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I > don't write 'rain' with a long vowel. > > RLR: Ditto in Kansa. naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second > accented) nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as in French) > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after > mulling it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable in > naNz^iN', 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? I hope the non-Dhegihanists and non-comparativists on the list will excuse us as we wrestle with this single form and what must seem like something we ought to know by now! Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't! It's really important for those of us working with Omaha - and in a larger sense Dhegiha - to understand how the phonology of forms like this works! I have the impression that Bob is saying that these forms in Kaw, modulo vowels, contrast CVVCV' and CVCV', whereas Carolyn is mentioning CVVCV (CVV'CV?) and CV'CV. Rory seems to have CVVCV' and CVCV'. I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! It strikes me that it would be a bit odd for there to be second syllable accent if this was the third mora. Of course, I'm not positive that "second mora" accent survives the discovery of vowel length, but I suspect there is something in it, as it works so well in accounting for patterns in both Dakotan and Winnebago, albeit in the former case the rule is somewhat discretized by the absence of vowel length, and in the latter case it only appears if you reverse a couple of major sound changes, "in underlying forms." I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! Just out of curiosity, Rory - or anyone, for that matter - what is the pitch contour of naNaNz^iN in Omaha or anywhere else, not necessarily in Dhegiha? I'm wondering, frankly, if the pitch contour isn't H H L naNaNz^iN Is there any trace of falling pitch on the final syllable? H H HL naNaNz^iN I always thought I tended to hear some bisyllabic H L forms as finally accented, though I think that they should really be classed as initially accented. I'd expect pattern one above with initial accent and pattern two with final accent. The fall might be absent, however, in cases where something additional followed, e.g., H H H? H? L naNaNz^iN=i(N)=the It might also be difficult to judge length, if the basis for the judgement was relative length and the form in question had an underlying plural/proximate =i that was deleted finally with, say, compensatory lengthening of the final syllable. This might be controlled for by looking at a form that moved the plural/proximate slot to a later position, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=naN=(i) or didn't require it, e.g., naN(aN)z^iN=akHa. And, of course, in =i=the, the =i should resurface. Still another way of controlling which is not an option here is that ablauting final reveals whether the form under consideration has =i by changing -e to -a. If you ask for a form like "to walk" or "walking," it's not necessarily clear what you'd get in a language that lacks infinitives (?) and/or may not have a standard citation form. In fact, it might also be worth looking at your perception of length in a cross-section of forms: first, second, third, inclusive and also imperative and "embedded" under a governing predicate. The personal forms won't work with 'rain', of course! But I think we tend to make the simplifying assumption that length is constant. A good deal might actually depend on factors like inflection or foot structure. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 1 23:10:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:10:23 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E56@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > There are a lot of remaining questions. A full fledged reanalysis of > accent and length has to be done. The answers won't be simple exactly > because of verbs like naaNz^iN 'stand'. Historically it is probably > bimorphemic, or, at the very least, susceptible of being folk > etymologized as such, since the two parts have discernable meanings: na- > 'on foot' and z^iN 'erect'. How are such compounds treated accentually? > Or if they're thought of as monomorphemic, is the accent different? I can answer part of this on a basis of past experience in Dorsey and in person, though the answer is innocent of a current appreciation of length. Anyway, in virtually every form that is either a transparent compound or arguably so from its morphosyntax, where the initial element is monosyllabic (length not necessarily clear) the accent is initial. So, forms that have the structure CV=xxxx, have the accent pattern CV'=xxxx, where CV is a proverb (any element that consistently precedes the pronominals, i.e., not a locative) and xxxx the root, or CV is a "main element" and xxxx is proclitic. I didn' recognize length in coming up with this observation, but in most cases length seems not to be a factor. Rather, it is the enclitic boundary that is. There are a limited set of exceptions. - Initial s^u with motion verbs is not accented, and contracts with a following a-initial, e.g., s^u=bdhe' 'I am approaching you', but s^=adha'=i 'he is approaching you'. Presumably this is a short vowelled form. - The demonstratives are stressed before most enclitic "tight" postpositions, e.g., e'=tta 'to(ward) it', e'=di '(up)to it', but not if =thaN is added after a such a postposition, e.g., e=tta'=thaN, e=di'=thaN 'from it'. I suppose one could argue that =thaN causes preceding e'=di and e'=tta to be treated as bases in their own right, suppressing their internal boundaries as it were. - Some (but not all) of the monosyllabic animal terms that serve as possessors or whole-denominators in body-part compounds, e.g., tta=he' 'ruminant-horn' seem not to be accented. This is not consistent, and I speculate that it may depend on the length of the stem, although the stems may appear long in some environments, e.g., as monosyllables. - In many cases where the second (proclitic base or enclitic) element is vowel initial, the accent falls on it, e.g., e=(?)aN' 'how'. This is not always consistently marked in Dorsey. My suspicion is that this is related to the tendency of forms like mu(u)'=ase 'I cut' to be pronounced mw-aa'se. In other words, V'=V => [glide]=VV'. The quality of e in spoken instances of e=a' sequences is more or less lax e or epsilon and rather different from e in other contexts. Inconsistency of marking could reflect careful pronunciations. - Something similar, perhaps at an earlier stage of the language, may account for i-(dh)a'- as the first person of i-locative verbs , but i'-dha- as the second person. The parenthetical dh of the first person is present, but historically epenthetic. The shift of the accent may be explained by still earlier i-a'- where "a" is the first person, cf. Dakotan wa-. The second person is "dha," cf. Dakotan ya-. This is where Winnebago has y-aa- < *i-a- in the first person of (h)i-locatives, and w-aa- < *o-a'- in the first person of (h)o-locatives. - The verbs of 'saying' e=...(h)e' and 'thinking' e=...dhe' and 'doing' e=...(?)aN' (but see above) treat e= as unaccented except in the datives: e'=g(i)-e 'to say to', e'=gidhe (?) 'as expected', e'=g()i)aN 'like'. However many uses of egaN as a conjunctive particle seem to stress it depending on the foot structure of what precedes. - Certain forms are presented by Dorsey as accented on a third syllable in a second or third element in a clitic conplex, e.g., e(=)bdh=e'(=)gaN 'I think'. I assume this is an artifact of looking at pitch accent as stress and trying to work out e=bdh(e)'=e=gaN. Thus these forms may not be exceptional in any real way. Another example like this is Dorsey's waiiN' 'blanket'. (I think Dorsey writing a'=i 'he said it' as ai' is along the same lines.) From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 2 17:27:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:27:38 -0600 Subject: My e-mail address. Message-ID: Hi all, The University is going to cease supporting mail delivery to all addresses containing the sequence "ukans.edu" as of next week or so. Most of the spam we get contains that sequence. So the only address I will be able to be reached at will be rankin at ku.edu. I hope those of you who correspond with me will make sure you have the "ku.edu" version in your address book. John, could you check and see if the list has the right address? The old rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu and rankin at ukans.edu will be non-functional, and mail will be neither forwarded nor delivered to them. On another note, I'm recovering from my trip to Canada, grant application deadlines, etc. and will set about answering my corespondence and sending out copies of the Ablaut paper in the next day or two. Thanks for being patient -- it's been a busy time. Many thanks, Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 3 15:21:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:21:14 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I decided on Friday that I couldn't rely on my memory for this and had > to check the data - my recordings, Dorsey, etc. Unfortunately I never > got to email over the weekend and so forgot the whole question! In my field notebook II:17: (Revising the notation somewhat for this context, I'll mark pitch as V' (V high) V (V low) instead of acute and grave accents and convert the contour mark I sometimes used when whole words seemed lower than preceding ones to ... (downstep) ...) 'it's raining' naN'z^iN' (downstep) naN'z^iN' rain stand 'he keep standing' e'di'gaN (downstep) naN'z^iN' e'di' naN'z^iN' s^aNs^aN there stand forever naN'z^iN' s^aN's^aN naN'z^iN' akH dhi's^taN'baz^i it rains forever it's raining without ceasing s^aN'aN's^aN 'forever, perpetually' 'it's raining now' iN'c^HaN (downstep) naN'z^iN' 'he's standing now' iN'c^aN (downstep) naN'z^iN' (asserted by speaker CS) *no* difference I:85 ni'u'z^i naN'z^iNtta a'kH sN'de 'past the water tower' I:121 naN'z^iN'ttaitte (-tHe ??? I wonder now) he ought to stay (i.e., stand) Reverting to using ' to indicate the point at which accent is put (by Dorsey): Dorsey 'stand' 90:17.14 na(N)z^iN'=bi=ama 'he stood' 90:23.20 na(N)z^iN'=i=ga 'stand ye!' 90:23.3 na(N)z^iN' akH(ama) 'they were standing' 90:23.4 dhana(N)'z^iN 'you stand' 90:27.7 na(N)z^iN' tHaN 'he was standing' ... Cases of 'stand' with apparent initial acent: 90:183.6 na(N)'z^iN=b=adaN 'stand and (therefore)' 90:669.6 gdhedaN' na(N)'z^iN 'standing hawk' (a name) Dorsey 'rain' 90:134.15 na(N)z^iN' 'rain' 90:134.17 na(N)z^iN' wiN'=dhaNdhaN'=xti 'rain(drops) just one at a time' 90:134.20 na(N)z^iN-u'bighaN'=xti 'very fine, misting rain' 90:199.10 na(N)z^iN' e' 'that rain' I persistently marked the nasalization of the initial syllable's a with (N) to emphasize that Dordsey doesn't mark nasalization after n, at least not in this case. But, e.g., 90:207.17 naNb=i'dadhe 'two were born' 90:210.6 naNbe' 'hand' 90:220.4 naN 'grown (up)' (of a woman) Also: 90:87.10 na(N)z^i'ha 'hair' (note that the second syllable isn't nasalized) ==== > I also meant to check Miner's Winnebago version this weekend! No. 2279: naNaNz^iN' 'stand; stand up' A1 naN'aNz^iN 'I stand up' Which I believe implies: PreWi naN(aN)'=z^iN naN(aN)'=az^iN No. 2365 niNiNz^u' 'rain' Again, PreWi niNiN'-z^u From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 3 20:06:26 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:06:26 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper. Message-ID: To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't embed them as it was supposed to. At the moment I don't quite know what to do about the problem, since the .pdf file creation is automated. I click on the button that says "make .PDF file", it proceeds to chug along and make one, but it fails to embed the font. If you already have John Koontz's Siouan Doulos font (downloadable from his web site) installed on your PC, the symbols in the paper should read exactly right. If you do not, or if you use a Mac, then in all probability what I sent you will look like the proverbial "dog's breakfast". I'll work on fixing the problem and will re-send the paper when I get things solved. Bob From cstelfer at ucalgary.ca Thu Nov 4 01:56:49 2004 From: cstelfer at ucalgary.ca (Corey Telfer) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:56:49 -0700 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'stand' In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E56@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: At the conference this summer I thought somebody (or even a few people) said that the irregular /CVC/ roots in Lakota developed from long vowels in Proto- Siouan. Is this true, or is it just my wishful thinking? If it is true, is there a published reference I can cite? Thanks, Corey. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 4 05:21:54 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:21:54 -0700 Subject: *CVC Stems as *CVVC Stems (RE: Kaw and Osage 'stand') In-Reply-To: <200411040156.iA41unV21866@smtp1.ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Corey Telfer wrote: > At the conference this summer I thought somebody (or even a few people) said > that the irregular /CVC/ roots in Lakota developed from long vowels in Proto- > Siouan. Is this true, or is it just my wishful thinking? If it is true, is > there a published reference I can cite? I don't recall the particular instance in question - maybe something Bob said? - but the Dakotan CVC roots correspond generally to CV'Ce roots in Dhegiha, and these are also the roots that tend to exhibit [CV'?(V)Ce] pronunciations when said slowly and carefully, as opposed to more rapid [CV'Ce]. (See John Boyle's bibliography for Bob Rankin's paper on this phenomenon, which may not mention vowel length.) I think Kathy Shea may have suggested to me that she thinks that these are artifacts of /CV:'Ce/ form and presumably this forms part of her dissertaion in progress. This ties in which the notion that PMV has second mora accent, i.e., these stems may be PS or PMV *CVV'C(e) stems. The *(e) manifests in various ways in various MV languages: as e' ~ a ~ 0 in Dakotan, as e in Dhegiha and Ioway-Otoe, and as 0 in Winnebago. The Dhegiha and IO stems sometimes show fossilized CVC or CV allomorphs, e.g., Da ha'za 'berry' : OP hazi 'grape, grape plant' < *has=hu 'berry stem' : IO has(j^e) 'strawberry' : Wi haa's 'berry; fruit', or Da s^uN'ka 'dog, horse' ~ (tha)s^uN'ke 'his particular horse'~ s^uNg(wiNyela) 'mare' : OP s^aN'ge 'horse' ~ s^aN'(ttaNga) 'wolf' : IO suN'e ~ suN'e 'dog, horse' : Wi s^uNuN'k 'dog, horse'. And sometimes Winnebago shows a final vowel in certain contexts only, e.g., OP maNs^tiN'ge 'rabbit' : Wi was^j^iNk 'rabbit' ~ was^j^iNge'(ga) 'the Rabbit'. Or IO or Winnebago might show an alternative to (e), e.g., Da c^haNte' 'heart' ~ c^haNl(wa's^te) 'be pleasant' : OP naN(aN)'de 'heart' : IO naN(aN)'hc^e < *naNaNkte < *raNaN't(ka) : Wi naNaN'c^ < *raNaN't(e) ~ naNaNc^ge' < *raNaN't(ka). In my kinship term paper I pointed out that sometimes you get *CV--e/a forms, too, where epenthetic glide can be *y (*r between vowels) or *w. There are various ways to analyze the (e) ~ (ka) elements, either morphologically or both phonologically and morphologically. I don't see how a purely phonological analysis is present with *ka in the picture. My own preference is to see the final elements *()e ~ *()a ~ *ka as morphemes with nominalizing force, and there are various ways to see that in historical terms. I have a paper (unpublished) on that, which John would list, and I have commented extensively - well, ad nauseam, really - on the possibilities on this list. I don't know that I have mentioned the length component of the notion before. That stems (no pun intended) from Kathy as far as I know. She and I discuss length and accent from time to time, but I'm pretty sure this was her suggestion or, rather, observation. I guess you would say that Da CVC stems develop from long vowel stems if the analysis is that PMV *CVVCe => PreDa *CVC (a phonological development), and that the various ablaut alternants or *a-extennsions or *ka extensions develop secondarily in Dakotan and the various other languages. Otherwise you would just say that CVC stems are reflexes of PMV *CVVC stems, and that other patterns of PMV stems, including at least *CV(V) and *CVCV exist. Either way you could argue that Da forms like CVCa reflect *CVV'Ca, while the variants in CVCe' and compounds accented CVC(CV'...) reflect *CVC with shortening of the stem internal vowel from *CVVC /__ "certain morphemes." Shortening leads to the following vowel (the new second mora) taking the accent. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Nov 4 07:28:49 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:28:49 +0100 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Bob, thanks a lot for ablaut.pdf >To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't embed them as it was supposed to... << The various fonts actually appear a bit strange: whereas in the tables some fonts seem to display correctly (s-hacek, i/a-nasal hook, gamma?), this doesn't hold for normal text (where there are weird c-cedilla etc.) So hopefully I nevertheless will gather what you're saying ;) Alfred From kdshea at ku.edu Thu Nov 4 08:34:52 2004 From: kdshea at ku.edu (Kathleen Shea) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:34:52 -0600 Subject: Kaw and Osage 'rain', 'stand' and 'boy' Message-ID: > > > Carolyn writes: > >> In Osage, 'to stand' has a long nasal a:N. 'To rain', on the other > hand, is > either ni'z^u or nu'z^u, where the first syllable vowel is not long, or at > least > is not so long as the a:N in 'to stand'. I don't write 'rain' with a long > vowel. > > > Ditto in Kansa. > > > > naaNz^iN' 'stand' (1st syll. long, second accented) > > > > nuz^u' 'rain' (1st syll short, second accented, /u/ is a > front-rounded V as > > in French) > > > > 'Boy' would be dissimilar in any event [...] > > > > So Kaw and Osage have no homonyms among these three. > > > > Bob > > Hmm. Well, I asked our other Omaha speaker on Friday, and after > mulling it over for a while, she denied that the first syllable > in naNz^iN', 'stand', was long. I wonder how Ponka handles it? > > Rory > I'm just sending a quick answer, because it's late and I can't see straight. I got around to asking Uncle Parrish (my only remaining consultant) about this on the phone Monday (even though it's hard to hear very well on the phone). He readily recognized and produced naNz^iN' naNz^iN'i 'It keeps raining.' (In fact he said it was doing that at the time in Oklahoma where he was.) I didn't hear a long vowel in the first syllable of either word (in line with Rory's note above), and the accent (higher pitch) was on the second syllable of each word (consistent with Bob's recording of the position of the accent in these two words in Kansa), with the final syllable of the last word being long, which I attributed to the presence of what we've been calling the "proximate" morpheme -i. When I asked Uncle Parrish if the first syllable "naN" in either word sounded long to him, he said that it didn't but took pains to point out to me that the sentence-final syllable was long, or "drawn out." He repeated this sentence several times for me, and his comments coincided with my observations. The long second syllable of naNz^iNi' 'stand' sounded to me as though it had two "chest pulses," but I don't remember now if the high pitch of that syllable fell or trailed off a bit at the end of the sentence or not since I didn't write it down. Of course, the nasalization of the preceding vowel probably spread to the final -i, but it's hard to distinguish oral from nasal i ~ iN in final position. Kathy From rankin at ku.edu Thu Nov 4 16:01:01 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:01:01 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: I'll send out another copy as soon as I get the font problem figured out. In the meantime, if you want you could go to John Koontz's website and download the Siouan Doulos font. That *should* clear up the remaining symbols. Best wishes, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred W. T?ting" To: Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:28 AM Subject: Ablaut paper > Bob, > thanks a lot for ablaut.pdf > > > >To all those whom I just emailed the copy of my Ablaut paper as a .pdf > file, my apologies. I just looked at the .pdf file on my wife's > computer, which doesn't have any Siouan fonts installed, and all of the > more exotic phonological symbols are garbage. So Adobe Acrobat didn't > embed them as it was supposed to... << > > > The various fonts actually appear a bit strange: whereas in the tables > some fonts seem to display correctly (s-hacek, i/a-nasal hook, gamma?), > this doesn't hold for normal text (where there are weird c-cedilla etc.) > > So hopefully I nevertheless will gather what you're saying ;) > > > Alfred > > > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 5 19:59:56 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:59:56 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea Message-ID: I happened on this site, which offers what I'd consider a good explication of the Sakakawea (etc.) name in connection with North Dakota's Lake Sakakawea park. http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm No particular new information, but an interesting reference: "The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia. The dotted s at the end [comment refers to a form Tsakaka-wia-s which is not present here - JEK] stands for sh in English, and makes the compound word a proper name. It is equivalent to the definite article the. Anglicizing this a little to suit those using only the English alphabet and unfamiliar with the scientific use of the vowels, and leaving off the initial t sound, which is hard for English tongues, we have the spelling in English, Sakakawea. During the last thirty years I have made numerous additions in manuscript to Mathews' book, and also some corrections, but I have no occasion to correct the spelling of the words in question." I don't know if Hall's annotated copy of the Matthews book is in a collection that can be consulted. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Nov 5 20:40:21 2004 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:40:21 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I happened on this site, which offers what I'd consider a good explication >of the Sakakawea (etc.) name in connection with North Dakota's Lake >Sakakawea park. > >http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm > >No particular new information, but an interesting reference: > >"The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State >Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The >editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. >L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North >Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." > >Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this >dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia. The >dotted s at the end [comment refers to a form Tsakaka-wia-s which is >not present here - JEK] stands for sh in English, and makes the compound >word a proper name. It is equivalent to the definite article the. >Anglicizing this a little to suit those using only the English alphabet >and unfamiliar with the scientific use of the vowels, and leaving off the >initial t sound, which is hard for English tongues, we have the spelling >in English, Sakakawea. During the last thirty years I have made numerous >additions in manuscript to Mathews' book, and also some corrections, but I >have no occasion to correct the spelling of the words in question." > >I don't know if Hall's annotated copy of the Matthews book is in a >collection that can be consulted. > >John E. Koontz >http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz Hall's annotated copy of Mathews grammar and dictionary is at the North Dakota Historical Society in Bismarck and is available for people to look at. I think his explanation is basically correct. John Boyle From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Fri Nov 5 21:24:17 2004 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:24:17 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea (Charboneau) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Members: It is intersting to note that the decendants of Charboneau (that is how they spell their name today) live here on the Spirit Lake Reservation Ft. Totten, ND. The SHSND also has a folder on him in their files. Louie Garcia From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 6 19:07:15 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:07:15 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: > (John) http://www.state.nd.us/hist/sakakawea.htm No particular new information, but an interesting reference: "The following brief article was published in the Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota in 1906 (vol. 1, pages 69-72). The editor of the Collections was Professor Orin G. Libby. The author, Rev. C. L. Hall, was a missionary to the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The term Grosventre refers to the Hidatsa." Hall comments "The words for bird and woman are given in place in this dictionary. We thus get for the name The Bird Woman, Tsakaka-wia...<< I think that Hall is very convincing with this. IMVHO, it's the more a quite striking evidence that in those days people like Clark and Lewis (and maybe Charbonneau himself - who could not read and write) were not educated enough to even spell a French name correctly (not to speak of Hidatsa expressions). "The following references are to the Original Journal of the Lewis and Clark Exposition, N. Y., 1904. I. Variations in the spelling of Charbonneau: Clark's spelling. References: Vol. I., 217, 226, 239, 248, 250, 251, 269, 271, 274, 275, 311; Vol. II., 198; Vol. III.. 111; Vol. V., 9, 341, 344; Vol. VII., 330. Chabono, Charbonee, Chabonoe, Chabonat, Chaboneau, Chabonah, Chaubonie, Charbono, Shabonoe, Shabonah, Shabona. Shabowner, Shabono, Shabownar, Toisant Chabono, Tousent Chabono, Teusant Charbono. Lewis' spelling. References: Vol. I., 257, 284, 301; Vol. II., 197, 226, 273; Vol. V., 48; Vol. VII.. 331, 359. Charbono. Sharbono, Sarbono, Touasant Charbono, Touisant Charbono, Tauasant Charbono." The name of Charbonneau is pretty close to French _charbonnier_ German 'K?hler', the name of our Bundespr?sident (Federal President) Horst K?hler ;-) BTW, here's an interesting site on Toussaint Charbonneau: http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/CorpsOfDiscovery/TheOthers/Civilians/ToussaintCharbonneau.htm Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 7 13:00:53 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:00:53 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: Hi, from the statement here, http://www.state.nd.us/hist/LewisClark/translation.html in what language do you think did Sakakawea talk to her husband? Was it Hidatsa too (that, reportedly, Charbonneau didn't speak/understand? too well)? Alfred From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 8 17:05:38 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:05:38 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418E1C85.1050603@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > from the statement here, > http://www.state.nd.us/hist/LewisClark/translation.html > in what language do you think did Sakakawea talk to her husband? Was it > Hidatsa too (that, reportedly, Charbonneau didn't speak/understand? too > well)? I suppose he must have been able to speak and understand Hidatsa after a fashion. Otherwise he wouldn't have fit into the chain of translation, and he would probably also have been severely handicapped in his trading activities. I suppose we would know if communication between Sacagawea and Charbonneau was actually in pidgin French, since in that event Charbonneau wouldn't have been an essential element in the chain. Charbonneau gets a lot of bad press, and may have more or less earned it, but he must have been a fairly sharp character in a number of ways to make his living the way he did. Incidentally, given his later life and the nature of the Missouri trade, he must have also been able to speak at least some Dakota, too. If only for linguistic reasons, it would be interesting to know more about the language abilities and communication techniques of the early traders, and especially whether they and the Native Americans they were speaking to made use of pidgins, since these would have served as conduits for loan words and the spread of syntactic constructions, etc., especially if they existed before the European traders started to make use of them. We do know some things, since we have word lists accumulated by some of the traders, and we probably have some specific commentary, too, but this is not really an area in which I am well-informed. It's possible that Sacagawea herself may not have been entirely fluent in Hidatsa at this point, though she'd had about 4 years starting at about age 12 to learn it. Her value to the Expedition as a translator was probably that she could speak Shoshone as well as Hidatsa. The Expedition intended to travel through Shoshone territory and buy horses from the Shoshone. Incidentally, this page refers to Charbonneau as "Troussant Charbonneau," but my recollection is that it was Toussaint - "All Saint(s)." I suppose he was born or maybe it's christened on November 1? (Not that I'm necessarily in position to complain about other folks' spelling, and I'm fairly slovenly about editing, too.) From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Nov 8 19:25:20 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:25:20 +0100 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau Message-ID: >(John) Incidentally, this page refers to Charbonneau as "Troussant Charbonneau," but my recollection is that it was Toussaint - "All Saint(s)." I suppose he was born or maybe it's christened on November 1? (Not that I'm necessarily in position to complain about other folks' spelling, and I'm fairly slovenly about editing, too.)<< You're right - and I've found quite some variants how this first name is spelled ;-) But would you judge from this that this site's statement on the "chain of translation" is erroneous as well? ("It worked something like this: A native speaker would ask Sakakawea a question in Hidatsa, she in turn would then REPEAT (!) the question to her husband Troussant Charbonneau. Charbonneau, in turn, would ask a French speaker (perhaps fur trader Rene Jessaume) the same question in French, who would then translate it to English for Lewis and Clark.") To me, this repetition doesn't make much sense (except for the fact that Ch.'s knowledge of the Hidatsa language was not good enough to wholly understand other speakers than his wife - who might have rephrased the sentences for him). This, BTW, sometimes is the case with me understanding my wife's Transylvanian Saxon much better than that spoken by her compatriots. Here's an - original Canadian-French - text on the issue with some interesting details: http://www.leveillee.net/roots/frowen4-10.htm Interesting also to know that 'Pomp' is said to having had a German son named Anton Fries in Bad Mergentheim/Baden-Wuerttemberg, whose < parents are noted as "Johann Baptist Charbonnau of St. Louis 'called the American in the service of Duke Paul of this place and Anastasia Katharina Fries, unmarried daughter of the late Georg Fries, a soldier here.'" The child died three months later, after which Jean Baptiste left for the United States >. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature4/online_extra.html Alfred P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 8 21:44:02 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:44:02 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FC820.5060407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > But would you judge from this that this site's statement on the "chain > of translation" is erroneous as well? ("It worked something like this: A > native speaker would ask Sakakawea a question in Hidatsa, she in turn > would then REPEAT (!) the question to her husband Troussant Charbonneau. > Charbonneau, in turn, would ask a French speaker (perhaps fur trader > Rene Jessaume) the same question in French, who would then translate it > to English for Lewis and Clark.") To me, this repetition doesn't make > much sense (except for the fact that Ch.'s knowledge of the Hidatsa > language was not good enough to wholly understand other speakers than > his wife - who might have rephrased the sentences for him). I think the mistake in the web page's presentation of the chain is that Sacagawea is represented as translating from Hidatsa to Hidatsa, whereas it should be from Shoshone to Hidatsa. We don't really have any basis for speculating which of Sacagawea or Charbonneau could speak better Hidatsa. Actually, I'd be willing to suppose that Sacagawea could speak at least some French. > P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? Lewis & Clark depict it as short for Pompey, I think, i.e., the English version of Latin Pompeius. I don't know the details, but I think the Journals indicate that the name was supplied by one of the two captains. On the other hand, Jean Charney told me it resembles Comanche pampi 'head'. The Shoshone would be about the same. I think that's would be a voiceless i in final position. She wondered if it might possibly be a Shoshone name, or part of it. This would be entirely hypothetical, of course, and she didn't have a great deal of confidence in the hypothesis. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:10:34 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:10:34 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: POMP Clark?s nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint CHARBONNEAU and SACAGAWEA, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi (sometimes written pampi) ?head.? This hypothesis is weakened, however, by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect encountered by Lewis and Clark had only b (written p ): Clark?s record of the Shoshone name for BEAVERHEAD ROCK, for instance, has pap, not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for YAMPA. (Given that he writes pap for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another situation write Pomp for ?head? as a personal name.) It seems more likely that Clark?s paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from Georgia to New Hampshire. (There were other slave-names of Roman origin, such as Cato and Scipio.) In the vernacular usage of Clark?s time, the name Pompey no longer denoted the Roman military hero but was merely a patronizing (if in this case affectionate) nickname given to one?s social inferior. Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean Baptiste as ?my boy Pomp? and ?my little danceing boy Baptiest?: if you wish to return to trade with the indians and will leave your little Son Pomp with me, I will assist you [20 Aug 06 WC in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 1.315] Continuing in loco parentis in 1820, Clark charged the government $16.37? ?for two quarters? tuition of J. B. Charboneau, a half Indian boy, and firewood and ink? and $1.50 for ?one Roman history for the boy,? besides numerous other educational and maintenance expenses (ASPIA II. 291). Clark may have named the prominent sandstone butte in central Montana after Pompey?s Pillar, an 88-foot column of granite in Alexandria, Egypt?which was actually dedicated in the third century AD to the Roman emperor Diocletian, not to General Pompey. It seems reasonable to assume in any case that he had Jean Baptiste in mind at the naming. This rock which I shall Call Pompy?s Tower is 200 feet high and 400 paces in secumphrance [25 Jul 06 WC 8.225] From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:09:22 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:09:22 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: >On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > >>P.S. Will anybody explain the meaning of the Native word pomp?? >> >> > >Lewis & Clark depict it as short for Pompey, I think, i.e., the English >version of Latin Pompeius. I don't know the details, but I think the >Journals indicate that the name was supplied by one of the two captains. >On the other hand, Jean Charney told me it resembles Comanche pampi >'head'. The Shoshone would be about the same. I think that's would be a >voiceless i in final position. She wondered if it might possibly be a >Shoshone name, or part of it. This would be entirely hypothetical, of >course, and she didn't have a great deal of confidence in the hypothesis. > Here's my stab at it for my L&C Lexicon. (I'll send it in both the ASCII and HTML versions.) Alan Pomp Clarks nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi (sometimes written pampi) head. This hypothesis is weakened, however, by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect encountered by Lewis and Clark had only -b- (written -p-): Clarks record of the Shoshone name for Beaverhead Rock, for instance, has pap, not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for yampa. (Given that he writes pap for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another situation write Pomp for head as a personal name.) It seems more likely that Clarks paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from Georgia to New Hampshire. (There were other slave-names of Roman origin, such as Cato and Scipio.) In the vernacular usage of Clarks time, the name Pompey no longer denoted the Roman military hero but was merely a patronizing (if in this case affectionate) nickname given to ones social inferior. Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean Baptiste as my boy Pomp and my little danceing boy Baptiest : if you wish to return to trade with the indians and will leave your little Son Pomp with me, I will assist you [20 Aug 06 WC in Jackson Letters (ed. 2) 1.315] Continuing in loco parentis in 1820, Clark charged the government $16.37? for two quarters tuition of J. B. Charboneau, a half Indian boy, and firewood and ink and $1.50 for one Roman history for the boy, besides numerous other educational and maintenance expenses (ASPIA ii. 291). Clark may have named the prominent sandstone butte in central Montana after Pompeys Pillar, an 88-foot column of granite in Alexandria, Egyptwhich was actually dedicated in the third century ad to the Roman emperor Diocletian, not to General Pompey. It seems reasonable to assume in any case that he had Jean Baptiste in mind at the naming. This rock which I shall Call Pompys Tower is 200 feet high and 400 paces in secumphrance [25 Jul 06 WC 8.225] From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 8 22:25:59 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:25:59 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEE92.7040904@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: My apologies: the HTML apparently didn't make it through the Siouan server. If anyone wants the formatted version of my Pomp entry, I'll be happy to send a small Word file. Alan From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 00:11:20 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:11:20 -0600 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEEDA.8070606@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: Alan wrote: > It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi > (sometimes written pampi) ?head.? This hypothesis is weakened, however, > by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect > encountered by Lewis and Clark had only b (written p ): Clark?s > record of the Shoshone name for BEAVERHEAD ROCK, for instance, has pap, > not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for YAMPA. (Given that he writes pap > for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another > situation write Pomp for ?head? as a personal name.) What is the Shoshone phonemic system like? If this question were coming up in Siouan, we'd probably be writing it paNpi or baNbi. Depending on the degree of nasalization at the end of the first syllable, an English speaker might write it either with or without an [m]. In any case, I don't see that the two possible explanations are mutually exclusive. Supposing the man was named 'Head', Pa(m)pi in Shoshone, the commonness of the name Pomp(ey) in American society at that time would naturally predispose Lewis and Clark to interpret the name that way, even if they wouldn't have put the [m] in for a word that to them was semantically void. Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 9 05:27:53 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:27:53 -0800 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Hi all, In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Tue Nov 9 11:40:31 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:40:31 +0000 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Dave: Big is chito /cito/ in Choctaw and ishto in Chickasaw, the Muskogean languages most relevant to the question. Quinary numeral systems aren't rare in North America, hence the use of 'two bones on the hand' for 'seven', etc.. Best Anthony >>> dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com 09/11/2004 05:27:53 >>> Hi all, In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. <<<>>> From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 14:44:54 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:44:54 -0600 Subject: two, three, seven, eight In-Reply-To: <20041109052753.66315.qmail@web53803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David wrote: > In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? I think this was actually discussed on the list, perhaps about six months to a year ago. This system certainly occurs in Dhegiha, e.g. OP naNba - 'two' ppe'dhaNba - 'seven' dha'bdhiN - 'three' ppedhabdhiN - 'eight' I don't think anyone knows what the ppe- element is, but it presumably refers somehow to the first five. > Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 9 15:17:13 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:17:13 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Re: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Re: two, three, seven, eight > . . . ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering > if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean > languages. /cito/ or, in the 'tall' sense, /ca:ha/, where "c" is the palatoalveolar affricate. This is Choctaw, and there are some cognates at least farther East. In Creek /lhakko ~ lhakki/ where "lh" is the voiceless lateral. > In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is > thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably > an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, > which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the > Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably > at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a > coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to > Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. Right. The OVS languages allow us to reconstruct an initial syllable, so the PSi should be something like *ihtaN. I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the right as you insert additional lexical material. Siouan has at least two distinct roots for 'big'. One is our *ihtaN and the other gives the CH-WI, HI and some other forms. I can't remember the set offhand, but it comes out something like *xete. Both words seem archaic since they occur in dispersed subgroups. > By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that > an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Aspirated. And Swanton uses "oN" for an allophone of /aN/, so Ofo has /ithaN/. Tutelo is similar. I have my doubts about the Cherokee, but the first thing to do is check other Iroquoian. There is no real evidence for a Siouan-Cherokee contact (excluding Catawba of course, but Catawba doesn't have the 'big' cognate.). As for the numeral words, we've already written quite a bit on this and the stuff is in the archives of the list. I did a paper on the numbers many years ago (pre-computer). Numerals 1-5 and probably 6, along with 10 are pretty easily reconstructible, and a decimal counting system is suggested. But early on you get partial quinary systems developing on top of whatever original system there was. I've tried to relate this to particular hand signs in the Plains Sign Language (PSL). But the quinary systems are somewhat different in the different languages signaling somewhat independent development. In Biloxi it may have been under the influence of Muskogean, which also has quinary terms. One of my M.A. students did a thesis on numeral systems in eastern North America. At any rate, it's hard to reconstruct 7, 8, 9 for PSi. 'Nine' may have been *k(i)$aNhka, but that term is shared with Algonquian and its source is by no means clear. I see that the PBS program NOVA is presenting an episode that explores the notion that the original Native Americans came from the continent of Europe (the Solutrean hypotheis, I imagine). That ought to be interesting and plenty controversial. Bob From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Tue Nov 9 15:35:13 2004 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:35:13 +0000 Subject: two, three, seven, eight Message-ID: Rory - it's aspirated t. Anthony >>> rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu 09/11/2004 14:44:54 >>> David wrote: > In looking through my Biloxi dictionary, I've noticed the same words seem to be used for 'two' and 'seven', and for 'three' and 'eight'! For the first pair it's noNpa; for the second it's dani. Dorsey makes an allusion in the dictionary that seven is "two bones on the other hand" and eight is "three bones on the other hand." I'm compiling a comparative wordlist of the Siouan languages I currently have info on (e.g., Hiraca, Dakota, Hocak, Biloxi, Ofo) and this doesn't seem to occur in these other languages. Is Biloxi a rarity in this, or are there examples from other Siouan languages that I don't have info on, or even from Muskogean? I think this was actually discussed on the list, perhaps about six months to a year ago. This system certainly occurs in Dhegiha, e.g. OP naNba - 'two' ppe'dhaNba - 'seven' dha'bdhiN - 'three' ppedhabdhiN - 'eight' I don't think anyone knows what the ppe- element is, but it presumably refers somehow to the first five. > Another question relates to another possible case of borrowing between Cherokee, Biloxi, and Ofo (or southeastern in general, as in the case of 'buffalo'): I'm not sure what "big" is in the other Siouan languages (except I believe it's ixtia in Hiraca), but in Biloxi it's taN and Ofo ithoN. This looks suspiciously similar to Cherokee utana. I'm wondering if any of the Muskogeanists could enlighten me on "big" in Muskogean languages. Anyone have any ideas about this? In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, which would match the Biloxi, and I suppose possibly the Cherokee. But this word is surely old in Siouan-- probably at least 2000 years-- so if the Cherokee form is not just a coincidence, then the borrowing must have gone from Siouan to Cherokee, or else happened a very long time ago. By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Rory ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. <<<>>> From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 9 17:17:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:17:11 -0700 Subject: Sakakawea - Charbonneau In-Reply-To: <418FEE92.7040904@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Pomp Clarks nickname for Jean Baptiste, the son of Toussaint > Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, at Fort Mandan. > > It has been suggested that the name reflects the Shoshone word bambi > (sometimes written pampi) head. This hypothesis is weakened, however, > by the fact that though modern Shoshone has -mb- in bambi, the dialect > encountered by Lewis and Clark had only -b- (written -p-): Clarks > record of the Shoshone name for Beaverhead Rock, for instance, has pap, > not pamp, and he writes Year-pah for yampa. (Given that he writes pap > for the head of a beaver, it seems unlikely that Clark would in another > situation write Pomp for head as a personal name.) This seems reasonable. I'll see if I can refer this to a specialist. > It seems more likely that Clarks paternal feelings for Jean Baptiste > found expression in a paternalistic naming tradition of the Eastern > elite. Pompey, the name of a famous Roman general, was used as a pet > name in the Virginian English of the period: George Washington refers in > his diary to the little Spaniel dog Pompey (1768) and to a dark bay > horse with the same name (1787). Pompey, Pompy and Pomp were common > names for slaves and ex-slaves (usually blacks, but in one case at > least, an Indian) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from > Georgia to New Hampshire. Thanks, I've also wondered about this pattern as a source, but couldn't document it well enough to venture it! > Clark writes in a letter to Charbonneau, in which he also refers to Jean > Baptiste as my boy Pomp and my little danceing boy Baptiest: Referring ahead to Tony's comment, I wonder if pamp(i) might not be possible variation of Bap(tiste), at least for an English speaker, assuming that the nasality was more or less optional. I don't believe nasal vowels are phonemic in Shoshone et al. but of course the logic of the system and its implementation are two different things. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 9 18:56:49 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:56:49 -0600 Subject: affixes vs. enclitics (was: two, three, seven, eight) In-Reply-To: <153a01c4c66f$31d7eb00$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: >> By the way, how is that Ofo version to be pronounced? Is that >> an aspirated 't' or an edh in /ithoN/ ? Anthony wrote: > Rory - it's aspirated t. Thanks, Anthony! Bob wrote: > Aspirated. And Swanton uses "oN" for an allophone of /aN/, so Ofo has /ithaN/. > Tutelo is similar. I suppose I should also have asked about Biloxi. Is it known whether the initial /t/ there is pre- or post-aspirated, tense, or whatever? >> In proto-MVS, I believe 'big' is *htaN'ka. In Dakotan it is >> thaN'ka, and in OP it is ttaN'ga. The final -*ka is probably >> an enclitic, so the original root for 'big' ought to be *htaN, Bob: > I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly > bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that > can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the > right as you insert additional lexical material. Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't quite sure, but the term enclitic popped into my head as I was writing that, so I decided to put it in to see what happened. I'll have a better sense of the difference in the future! However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of abbreviated speech dropping syllables. iNgdhaN'ga - 'cat' siNde' - 'tail' sne'de - 'long' But the word for 'puma' or 'mountain lion', "long-tailed cat", is iNgdhaN'siNsne'de where the -ga in iNgdhaN'(ga) and the -de in siN(de)' are absent, leaving only the -de in sne'de at the end of this NP. >>From this and other cases, I would suppose an earlier compounding grammar in which the NP or stative verb phrase could be closed by one of these affixes, such that only the final one was allowed. The one chosen would be the one normal to the last element, not the one normal to the head of the phrase. Thus, the grammatical slot for a closing affix would indeed move to the right as additional lexical material is inserted, though the specific particle itself could only be dropped, but not moved. In a system like this, would we call those phrase-closing morphemes enclitics, or affixes? (Note that I don't claim that this grammar is productive now, and that when I originally used the term 'enclitic' I had something like proto-MVS in mind.) Thanks again for the feedback! Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 9 19:57:30 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:57:30 -0800 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <1C6EE5238E283C9A3D5C3F38@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Yeah, yinisa is apparently a "southeastern" term that's been shuffled around the Muskogean languages as well as Biloxi and Cherokee. I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... Thanks, Dave Wallace Chafe wrote: Seneca for buffalo is degiya'goh (accent on a and nasalized o). Apparently this comes from *yotekriya'koh or something similar. Cayuga and Onondaga have similar words. It isn't clear what the word means. Wally --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 9 20:13:07 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:13:07 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] affixes vs. enclitics (was: two, three, seven, eight) Message-ID: > I suppose I should also have asked about Biloxi. Is it known whether > the initial /t/ there is pre- or post-aspirated, tense, or whatever? I wrote a paper on this. There are a few cases in the Biloxi dictionary where Dorsey apparently did hear aspiration and actually wrote "kx" or the like. There are maybe 6 or 8 such cases. So those cases in which we can say we have postaspiration. Everywhere else he followed his usual transcription practice, to wit: 1. If he hears a stop as lenis, he writes the dot under it. He "listens for" lenisness and his dotted stops can probably be thought of as reliably non-aspirated. 2. If he hears an aspirate he normally writes a plain stop (and compares it to English stops in the pronunciation key), BUT if he isn't sure which kind of stop he heard, he writes the plain stop by default. So dotted stops are reliable, but plain ones -- not so much. Nonetheless there is an excellent statistical correlation between the Biloxi stops as recorded by Dorsey and the aspiration contrast in other Siouan languages. So the bottom line is: We don't know exactly what the phonetic augment was in the Biloxi stop series, but it was probably post aspiration as in both Ofo and Tutelo. > However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really > mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common > "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); > and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, > but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped > in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of > abbreviated speech dropping syllables. That's true, but those "root extensions", to use Wes Jones' term for them, are still not enclitics, since they don't migrate from the end of the first element in the compound to the end of the compound. This doesn't come through with examples like siNsne'de because both siNde and snede end in -de. Pick an example where the extension on the first element is different from the one on the second, and you'll see that the first suffix is just gone -- it doesn't migrate to the end of the compound. I agree that in compounds of this sort, you get ROOTs not stems in the first part. Bob From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Tue Nov 9 20:57:34 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:57:34 -0800 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <20041109195730.3236.qmail@web53808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dave, There are two Northern Iroquoian verb roots meaning "big". The most widespread one is -owaneN- (nasalized e) or something similar, which I believe shows up in all the languages. It refers not only to size but also to importance. Seneca has a second one, -steN-, that refers only to the size of physical objects and occurs only with incorporated noun roots. It may be limited to Seneca. It would be nice if the Cherokee t were a w, but I guess it isn't. Wally > I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for > "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to > Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it > from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean > influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that > Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what > the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Tue Nov 9 22:15:27 2004 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:15:27 -0600 Subject: mystery words Message-ID: Hi all, Someone has asked me if I can translate the following phonetic phrase: takita owanna nakai While they look Siouan (at least at first glance) they're clearly not Hidatsa. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks, John Boyle From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 9 22:42:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:42:04 -0700 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > Bob: > > I'd say the -ka is an affix and tightly > > bound. I'd reserve "enclitic" for things like the articles that > > can be moved to the end of the NP, or, at least, farther to the > > right as you insert additional lexical material. > > Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't quite sure, but the term > enclitic popped into my head as I was writing that, so I decided > to put it in to see what happened. I'll have a better sense of > the difference in the future! This might be a sort of cline involved here. As far as I know the -ka that appears to be more or less separable in various stative verb sets, e.g., *htaN-ka 'big' (neglecting the initial vowel) or *pras-ka 'flat' 'flat' is always a fixed element of the stem in languages that have it. I guess I'd have to re-check 'big' in Winnebago. One assumes that either this is some kind of stem-formant or alternatively, something easily lost. I tend to prefer the former explanation. If it is a stem-formant, a reasonable possibility is that it is *ka 'yon' acting more or less as a clause final marker and then absorbed into the verb. I recall that demonstratives sometimes become copulas in other language families, but I don't recall the examples. The ka-formant strikes me as something like that. *ihtaN ka => *htaNka big that it's big Not all stative verbs have this formant where it occurs in some, but perhaps not all stative verbs have the same sort of origin. The point of this is that presuambly at some point -ka was an enclitic, if before that it was independent. But I agree that it's probably not enclitic even in Dhegiha where it is unaccented, e.g., ttaN'ga Presumably the process of an independent element becoming a fixed part of the stem, not even really a productive suffix, involves a series of intermediate behaviors, each of which fits systematically into some stage of the languages in question. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 00:05:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:05:11 -0700 Subject: Truncated Stems (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > However, even with the clarification, I'm not sure that I didn't really > mean 'enclitic'. In OP at least, we seem to have two or three common > "endings" for nouns and stative verbs: -ga and -ge (both < -*ka ?); > and -de < -*te. They seem to be tightly bound on individual words, > but in old compounds of such words these affixes seem to be dropped > in preceding position. I don't think this is just the result of > abbreviated speech dropping syllables. > > iNgdhaN'ga - 'cat' > > siNde' - 'tail' > > sne'de - 'long' > > But the word for 'puma' or 'mountain lion', "long-tailed cat", is > > iNgdhaN'siNsne'de > > where the -ga in iNgdhaN'(ga) and the -de in siN(de)' are absent, > leaving only the -de in sne'de at the end of this NP. > > From this and other cases, I would suppose an earlier compounding > grammar in which the NP or stative verb phrase could be closed by > one of these affixes, such that only the final one was allowed. Because the syllables that come and go here are fixed parts of the cognates elsewhere, and are more or less unpredictable, I'd argue that what is happening here is that an originally organic part of the stem is being deleted in compounding. Putting it the other way, the bound stem is truncated. I take these truncated forms as a Dhegiha version of Dakotan C-final stem form. That is, iNgdhaN- and siN- in iNgdhaN-siN-snede 'puma' are what happens to the historical bound alternants *iNkraNk- and *siNt- of the corresponding free forms *iNkraNk-e 'cat' and *siNt-e 'tail'. Since 'long' comes last, it takes the free form *sret-e, so the whole presupposed pattern something like *iNkraNk-siNt-sret-e. Obviously, in the Dhegiha context the free forms are produced by adding e, or the bound forms are produced by substracting it. I just went over the options on that for PMV in another connection, so I won't repeat it here. What I think I can fairly add here is that the loss of not only the "final e" but also the preceding consonant, so that iNgdhaNge reduces to iNgdhaN, not iNgdhaNg or something like that is consistent with Dhegiha's stringent restrictions on consonant clusters and also on consonant-finals. I think this explains truncation in Dhegiha vs. simple loss of final vowels in Dakotan: Dhegiha doesn't like Cs clusters (and reduces *ps and *ks to s) and Dhegiha doesn't like consonant finals. I don't want to suggest that iNgdhaNsiNsnede or other particular similar forms like waz^iNttu or s^aNttaNga, etc., are necessarily reconstructable for PMV or PDh, but only that the pattern of converting *CVC- bound forms to *CV- bound forms is, and that this pattern of truncated bound forms has been retained in at least some OP compounds, whether these are actually inherited or simply formulated on an observable conservative pattern. One possible hint that this pattern might be preserved in more recent forms by analogy is that I don't think that waz^iNga '(small) bird' would normally be expected to follow this pattern, though it does in waz^iNttu 'bluebird'. Perhaps in that case the truncation pattern has been over generalized? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 01:32:40 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:32:40 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) In OP, the word for 'pepper' is weo'kkihaN which seems to be formed from wa-i-u-kki-haN where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which attaches to the front to make ugu'-. I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order (wa)-i-kki-u-haN with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? Thanks, Rory From are2 at buffalo.edu Wed Nov 10 05:32:12 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:32:12 -0500 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, Hey. Just to be a bit anal about pronunciation, I'd transcribe 'pepper' as WiukihoN (popular orth.) or wiukkihaN (siouanist). wi vs. we as a pronunciation is a bit arguable as it is part of a glide here and as such is moving. It might be 'we' and the 'u' raises it to sound like 'wi'. 'We' is fine by me. The second vowel should definitely be 'u' and not 'o' because 'o' is a very limited phoneme in Omaha (only really on male endings - I mean enclitics). Cool etymology BTW! -Ardis PS Ok for more needless babbling on sounds, you could compare this to wiuga 'color' or 'crayon' which definitely sounds like /wiuga/ not /weuga/ but may well have developed from 'we' + 'uga' 'to dye/color.' We've always written wiuga as that is exactly how it sounds. There is always a question with writing how much historical to include versus how phonetically accurate to be. And always we make compromises. This comes up in class so much. I guess my test is that I leave it if I think it's going to help a second semester level student to form alot of new words or be able to break down a bunch of things easily in their heads but cut it if it is infrequent or unproductive or used on less common nouns/phrases. Also, I worry about how screwy it's going to make the pronunciation when read literally. (we try to get a feel for how much the Native Speaker breaks it down in their head.) And often the Elder instructor will say the word slowly a few times and they will make the decision (which is the BEST). So, in the end I like weukihoN and wiukihoN but veto weokihoN as it is less adequate phonetically (actual sounds) and phonologically (in relation to the sound system overall in Omaha). Now you see why I never write to the list. Everything gets carried away. Keep up the good work. Quoting Rory M Larson : > > > > > I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 > dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've > run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as > "Mixed Herbs", or > > mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ > mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) > > In OP, the word for 'pepper' is > > weo'kkihaN > > which seems to be formed from > > wa-i-u-kki-haN > > where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction > seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together > (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- > take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive > pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which > attaches to the front to make ugu'-. > > I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words > cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the > preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order > > (wa)-i-kki-u-haN > > with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. > > Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to > put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And > if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? > > Thanks, > Rory > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 13:28:47 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:28:47 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Iroquoian "buffalo" In-Reply-To: <6A18F274B62806FBEA7E9C1D@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: Wally, Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? thanks, Michael On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Dave, > > There are two Northern Iroquoian verb roots meaning "big". The most > widespread one is -owaneN- (nasalized e) or something similar, which I > believe shows up in all the languages. It refers not only to size but also > to importance. Seneca has a second one, -steN-, that refers only to the > size of physical objects and occurs only with incorporated noun roots. It > may be limited to Seneca. It would be nice if the Cherokee t were a w, but > I guess it isn't. > > Wally > > > I have another Iroquoian question: what are Seneca or Mohawk words for > > "big"? I ask because I notice Cherokee utana seems strikingly similar to > > Siouan taN or ithoN, and I'm wondering if Cherokee could have borrowed it > > from Siouan at some point. There doesn't seem to be any Muskogean > > influence here, since those words are quite different; my guess is that > > Cherokee utana is just coincidentally similar, but wanted to know what > > the other Iroquoian languages have to say.... > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 10 15:56:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:56:46 -0600 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) Message-ID: You'd have a hard time convincing me that it's possible to relate -ka to demonstrative elements of any kind. Cognacy involves more than just resemblant syllables, and -ka cannot be said to have any real semantics. I don't even accept it fully as something we could label 'stative verb formative', although it cooccurs with some statives. Personally, I'd want to see specific active verb roots that have been "stativized" or that have clear stative counterparts, where -ka is the sole distinguishing factor. If the process was even once productive, there should be relic forms stashed somewhere. It may be possible to find them, but I don't recall ever running across any. I agree with John, of course, that there is a cline between word, clitic, affix and mere phoneme. Our article in the Word book ed. by Dixon and Aikhenvald goes into detail on that. But I see no relic evidence for including -ka of *htaNka in that. > One assumes that either this is some kind of stem-formant or alternatively, something easily lost. I tend to prefer the former explanation. If it is a stem-formant, a reasonable possibility is that it is *ka 'yon' acting more or less as a clause final marker and then absorbed into the verb. I recall that demonstratives sometimes become copulas in other language families, but I don't recall the examples. The ka-formant strikes me as something like that. *ihtaN ka => *htaNka big that it's big > Not all stative verbs have this formant where it occurs in some, but perhaps not all stative verbs have the same sort of origin. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 10 16:17:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:17:34 -0600 Subject: [Spam:0005 SpamScore] Order of verb affixes Message-ID: Rory, For some odd reason our univ. server is marking all your postings as "SPAM". I can't figure why. Just a couple of observations on your 'boil with' or 'pepper' stems. I wonder if the u-/o- of *ohaN 'boil' is the locative prefix? It's entirely possible that it is/was but that it's become lexicalized with its root, of course. Etymologically it certainly had the /o/, but *o > u throughout in Omaha, of course, and in initial position in IO. So the question might be IS u- a prefix here, or WAS u- a prefix here -- but not any longer. Beyond that, in Dakotan the locative prefixes are mavericks in that they can occur at various points in the prefix string deriving new lexemes with each "move". This is covered in the paper on the Word in Siouan from the Dixon/Aikhenvald volume that John, John, Randy and I coauthored. In my experience there's no variability between [wi] and [we]. [we] is always a contraction of /wa- + i-/, 'noun formative plus instrumental'. I think that's what you're saying here. . . . Bob ********************************* Rory writes: I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I've run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) In OP, the word for 'pepper' is weo'kkihaN which seems to be formed from wa-i-u-kki-haN where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'. The entire construction seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together (with the rest of the food)'. In OP, verbs beginning with u- take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which attaches to the front to make ugu'-. I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order (wa)-i-kki-u-haN with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? Thanks, Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 17:00:57 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:57 -0600 Subject: *we-o- words (was: Order of verb affixes) In-Reply-To: <1100064732.4191a7dcb0b61@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Hey Ardis. It's great to hear from you! Yes, I've puzzled too about how to write that (originally) *we-o- sequence in Omaha. I think the problem is contained in the following basic facts and rules: 0) The original form is *we-o-. 1) *o => u in OP. 2) *e stays e in OP. 3) The two vowels in the *we-o- sequence have always been pronounced at the same level. Logically, something here has to break. My sense is that item 0) is a fact and rule 3) is hard. That makes it a fight between rules 1) and 2). I think that either there is variant pronunciation between weo- and wiu-, or that in the actual pronunciation in this case it is intermediate: something like a high weo- or a low wiu-. I know Dorsey must have struggled with this problem too, because in going through his dictionary word by word I discovered, to my great joy, that everything listed under weo- was listed yet again under wiu-. My own sense in listening to speakers on these words is that I can interpret the second vowel as something like a very high o sound, but I think it is really at a level intermediate between o and u. I haven't paid as much attention to the first syllable, which doesn't take the accent, but I think that one is probably intermediate between e and i as well. So I'm not entirely satisfied with any orthography for *we-o- words. It would be nice to have another set of vowels in the alphabet for sounds intermediate between e and i, and between o and u. I don't like the weu- spelling because it doesn't respect rule 3), which I think is a critical player here. I'm open to the wiu- spelling, which may be the closest approximation we can get to the actual pronunciation, but the problem I have with it is that it introduces a confusion for students by changing the spelling of the we- morpheme to wi- in this particular case. I know it took me a long time to realize that the wi- in wiu- verbs was the same thing as we- everywhere else. So I've been using weo- because that one respects rule 3), keeps the we- as we-, and reflects the historical origin. I don't like it either, but so far I've viewed it as the least of the three possible evils. So wiu'ga is the generic word for color? Great! We've been looking for that one! > Now you see why I never write to the list. Everything gets carried > away. Keep up the good work. You keep up the good work too. And please write in more often! The list is richer for your commentary. Regards, Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 17:34:40 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:34:40 -0700 Subject: Ioway-Otoe-Missouria Dictionary (Re: Order of verb affixes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992 > dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP. I believe these may still be available through the U of Colorado Dept. of Linguistics. It might take a while to get one, as the retail staff consists of David Rood or whoever he can get to volunteer instead. These are definitely worthwhile getting. There is absolutely nothing comparable out there if you work with IO or neighboring and related languages, or are interested in comparative Siouan. I've forgotten the price, and my information on that may be out of date anyway. It was based on the cost of getting the master xeroxed and bound. This is a two-inch thick labor of love compilation of existing slip files by Dorsey and Marsh and others integrated and extensively supplemented from Jimm Good Tracks extensive personal investigations. From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 10 18:09:56 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:09:56 -0800 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael, -iyo- is interesting. It doesn't mean "big" in either Seneca or Mohawk, which Dave originally asked about, but rather something more like "good" or "nice", in various senses including nice-looking, well-behaved, etc. In Tuscarora, though, it means "big, great, beautiful", referring at least to some positive quality. Marianne suspects that the Proto-Northern-Iroquoian meaning might have been "big", and that the Tuscaroras extended it to "beautiful" through contact with the languages in the north, which had already replaced "big" with "good". That's certainly possible. These are all verb roots, by the way. Wally > Wally, > Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? > thanks, > Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 18:15:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:15:25 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > [IO] ... for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as "Mixed Herbs", or > > mankan iki'rohan (LR)/ > mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY) > > In OP, the word for 'pepper' is > > weo'kkihaN > > which seems to be formed from > > wa-i-u-kki-haN > I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words > cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the > preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order > > (wa)-i-kki-u-haN > > with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-. > > Am I correct in this analysis? If so, is it normal for IOM to > put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs? And > if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this? I think you are correct, except that from the presence of iro- ~ -iru-, which is the compound of the i and o locatives, I think that the IO structure may be slightly more complex: (wa)-i-khi-iro-haN The inflection and further derivation of compound locatives is messy in OP and I haven't a clue how it might work in IO or Winnebago. This is an area that hasn't been much looked into, I think. The same is true of the inflection of reflexives in those languages, though hints in the available dictionaries and sketch grammars suggest it may be complex. So, the repetition of i on both sides of khi may be part of the handling of khi with iro, and it is also quite possible - we'd have to check for hints in Whitman - that pronominals before khi all behave as if there were an inserted -i-. I actually think that might be the case, but it wouldn't account for the form ik(h)i'rohaN where nothing precedes the khi. Incidentally, I'm writing kh for aspirates and g for nonaspirates, just to emphasize the distinction, following a practice Bob Rankin suggested for the CSD, but JGT writes k and g, which would obviously be the preference in any practical orthography. As far as the OP forms, and looking ahead to Ardis's much appreciated comments, it is my impression that Dorsey writes we- for underlying wa-i- and wa-gi- sequences, but wiu- for underlying wa-i-u- sequences. I've always assumed there was some real phonetic basis for this, at least in the 1890s. I don't recall at the moment if I ever encountered a wiu- surface sequence personally. I did encounter we- when the i-locative was present by itself. As far as the inflection of i-u- compounds, the OP surface form for the historically underlying *iro- (Da iyo-, Wi hiro-, IO iro- ~ iru-) is udhu-, e.g., *udhukkihaN 'to cook for oneself by means of something'. An example that definitely occurs in this form would be udhuhe 'to follow by means of something (like tracks)' vs. uhe 'to follow (a path, etc.)'. When you add wa- (any kind) to udhu- you get wiu-, in Dorsey and Hahn anyway, i.e., the epenthetic -dh- disappears and the assimilation of i to u across it is undone. This is a fairly drammatic pattern of allomorphy, but it nicely demonstrates that udhu- is from *iro-. I think this alternation is a pan-Dhegiha pattern, i.e., an isogloss that would mark a Siouan language as one of the Dhegiha group. What I find interesting here is that it appears that the compound locatives *iro- and *ira- were already part of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan morphology. I don't know if the semantics of these forms have ever been systematically investigated in any of the languages, let alone comparatively. I have a rough notion of OP udhu- as 'through, along', but in many specific cases the 'by means of' sense of the outer i- is more or less evident, and I suspect that the 'through, along' idea is a spurious consequence of looking at common English equivalents of udhu-forms, as opposed to looking at the underlying morphology and how the forms are used in clauses. In line with Bob's remarks on whether *o- in 'cook' is a locative, I seem to recall that in some Dakotan o-verbs there are morphological anomalies that suggest o is not the locative. I can't remember if the relevant example was 'cook' or 'help'. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 18:28:41 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:28:41 -0500 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: <3B45E9E1FACB4681256D1925@[192.168.2.34]> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Michael, > > -iyo- is interesting. It doesn't mean "big" in either Seneca or Mohawk, > which Dave originally asked about, but rather something more like "good" or > "nice", in various senses including nice-looking, well-behaved, etc. In > Tuscarora, though, it means "big, great, beautiful", referring at least to > some positive quality. Marianne suspects that the Proto-Northern-Iroquoian > meaning might have been "big", and that the Tuscaroras extended it to > "beautiful" through contact with the languages in the north, which had > already replaced "big" with "good". Wally, It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. Thanks, Michael That's certainly possible. These are > all verb roots, by the way. > > Wally > > > Wally, > > Isn't there also |-iyo-|? Or is that called a "verb root"? > > thanks, > > Michael > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 18:36:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:36:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just one more follow up here. The relative order of pronominals and locatives in MV Siouan languages differs extensively. The Dakota pattern is only generically similar to what occurs in Dhegiha or Chiwere or Winnebago. For example, aN(g)-, the "agent" inclusive pronominal in OP, precedes the a-locative and u-locative, but follows the i-locative. The surface forms are aNg-a-, aNg-u- and aN-dh-aN- < *i-r-aN-. On the other hand wa-, the "patient" inclusive pronominal, precedes the a-locative and i-locative, and follows the u-locative: wa'-, we'-, uwa'-. This oddity is mitigated, but in no way simplfied, when one realizes that the wa following u is actually secondary. Historically *wa-o- > *wo- and that form is reduced to u'- in OP and it is often difficult to distinguish this u'- from u- not incorporating a hidden wa- once the inflecting starts and the dust rises. But some verbs - I'm not quite able to characterize which except by listing them - insert a "new" or "pleonastic" wa after u. I think this usually occurs with human objects. In addition, I've noticed that in OP things like reflexives sometimes get inserted not in some template-determined location, but simply at the front of whatever is "already" (lexically) present. I'd have to track down the examples, though I once used them in a SACC paper. I can't remember if we used these examples in the 'Word' paper, but they certainly entered into our thinking for it. In a lot of Siouan morphological situations it looks to me like "point of insertion" is less determined by a mental slot map than by a sort of enzyme-like consideration. If an X is to be added, we look at the shape of plug the X has and then stick it in the first (or all) sockets where that plug would fit, and failing such a socket we pile it in front of the form. I'm not sure this metaphor helps all that much, since the nature of what constitutes a socket is not made particularly clear. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 19:06:37 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:06:37 -0700 Subject: Stative Formant -ka (was Re: affixes vs. enclitics) In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E5E@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > You'd have a hard time convincing me that it's possible to relate -ka to > demonstrative elements of any kind. Cognacy involves more than just > resemblant syllables, and -ka cannot be said to have any real semantics. The argument is more syntactic than semantic. Nothing about the semantics of the forms argues for -ka < ka DEM, I agree. > I don't even accept it fully as something we could label 'stative verb > formative', although it cooccurs with some statives. Personally, I'd > want to see specific active verb roots that have been "stativized" or > that have clear stative counterparts, where -ka is the sole > distinguishing factor. If the process was even once productive, there > should be relic forms stashed somewhere. It may be possible to find > them, but I don't recall ever running across any. I would argue that the -ka formative was not added to a non-stative verb to stativize it, but sometimes appears with things that were once simply adjectives, because those forms often occurred in syntactic contexts (predications) where a predicative ka followed them. Thus the only relicts of ka-less forms are the reflexes of these stems in languages where the stems lack -ka. The forms with -ka have it as a relict of ocurring before (enclitic?) predicator ka in predicative contexts, while the forms without -ka reflect the original stem preserved from non-predicative contexts or simply not having picked up the ka attachment from those contexts where it co-ocurred. It's even possible that the hypothetical predicative ka didn't occur in the dialects of PS that lead to the languages in which the ka-less forms occur. I think forms lacking ka are not random, but occur consistently in certain languages, e.g., Winnebago. Obviously there's some sort of reanalysis involved. The ka goes from being a functional mark of predication next to an adjective in a predicate to being part of a predicating stative verb. There might well have been other kinds of stative verbs around already to facilitate the reanalysis. Putting it another way, the -ka is picked up like a burr from a context where burrs occur as result of frequenting that context, rather than added derivationally to create a certain result. I suppose the distinction is a bit moot. You could call it a derivational suffix for forming statives from adjectives if you classed the underlying stems as adjectives. On the other hand there are no surface adjectives in the Siouan languages where -ka is a formant. Or anywhere else in Siouan as far as I am aware. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Nov 10 19:15:15 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:15:15 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E5F@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob, Sorry about upsetting your server. I have no idea why either. Maybe it doesn't like Lotus Notes? Thanks for your feedback, though actually I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying at a couple of critical points. > Just a couple of observations on your 'boil with' or 'pepper' stems. I > wonder if the u-/o- of *ohaN 'boil' is the locative prefix? It's > entirely possible that it is/was but that it's become lexicalized with > its root, of course. Etymologically it certainly had the /o/, but *o > > u throughout in Omaha, of course, and in initial position in IO. So the > question might be IS u- a prefix here, or WAS u- a prefix here -- but > not any longer. I don't know about IO, but to the best of my knowledge pretty much all verbs that begin with u- in OP are formed from the locative prefix u- < *o-, meaning 'in', 'into' or 'in the context' of something, plus the root. All affixed pronouns are attached to the root except for 'we', aN(g)-, which goes to the front of the u-, turning the whole prefix into ugu-, with the aNg- < *uNk- denasalized. Otherwise, the initial u- is unaffected except for being nasalized by a following nasal vowel across an epenthetic [w]. Thus, for uhaN', 'boil' or 'cook', we have: uhaN' < u-haN s/he cooks it ua'haN < u-a-haN I cook it udha'haN < u-dha-haN you cook it ugu'haN < aNg-u-haN we cook it aNwaN'haN < u-aN-haN s/he cooks me udhi'haN < u-dhi-haN s/he cooks you uwi'haN < u-wi-haN I cook you uwa'haN < u-wa-haN s/he cooks us/them (animate) (This one is homophonic with ua'haN.) This pattern seems to be very regular with OP u- verbs, and I assume this u- is always the locative prefix. So u-haN' presumably means/meant "cook in (a kettle, paunch or something)". But maybe the form has been lexicalized in IO, so that inflection always comes at the front. Does anyone know if this is the case with IO u- < *o- verbs? > Beyond that, in Dakotan the locative prefixes are mavericks in that they > can occur at various points in the prefix string deriving new lexemes > with each "move". This is covered in the paper on the Word in Siouan > from the Dixon/Aikhenvald volume that John, John, Randy and I > coauthored. So Dakotan is variable in affix order, hmm? In general, I don't think that OP is. But maybe IO is also variable? > In my experience there's no variability between [wi] and [we]. [we] is > always a contraction of /wa- + i-/, 'noun formative plus instrumental'. > I think that's what you're saying here. . . . I think so. I guess we may be getting confused between the morpheme [we-] < [wa-] + [i-], and the question of how to pronounce that morpheme when it precedes u- < *o-. So when I come across a verb written wiu- in OP, that is morphologically the same thing as [we-] + [u-], correct? Thanks! Rory From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 10 20:19:06 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:19:06 -0800 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael, You probably know that Ohio comes from a Seneca word, Ohi:yo?, which is currently the name of both a river and the Allegany Reservation. The river includes what we call the Allegany (Allegheny in PA) and its continuation as the Ohio. The name has the -iyo- verb root preceded by a noun root meaning "river", which shows up here as simply h. I'm not sure what you mean by the name being probably quite ancient; I don't know how to tell how long the Senecas have been using it. To them today it certainly means something like "good river" (maybe in the sense of how it looks, belle riviere), not "big river". Wally > It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym > "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI > sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" > certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 10 21:01:30 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:01:30 -0500 Subject: Nice and big in Northern Iroquoian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What I mean, Wally, is that the hydronym probably dates to the time when -iyo- meant 'big' in Iroquoian, cross-family cognate with say Miami-Illinois /mihsisiipiiwi/. Michael On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Wallace Chafe wrote: > Michael, > > You probably know that Ohio comes from a Seneca word, Ohi:yo?, which is > currently the name of both a river and the Allegany Reservation. The river > includes what we call the Allegany (Allegheny in PA) and its continuation > as the Ohio. The name has the -iyo- verb root preceded by a noun root > meaning "river", which shows up here as simply h. I'm not sure what you > mean by the name being probably quite ancient; I don't know how to tell how > long the Senecas have been using it. To them today it certainly means > something like "good river" (maybe in the sense of how it looks, belle > riviere), not "big river". > > Wally > > > It seems that Marianne is onto something here. In fact, the hydronym > > "Ohio," which is probably quite ancient, would seem to embody the PNI > > sense of |-iyo-|, although the French translation "belle riviere" > > certainly reflects the modern Seneca/Mohawk "nice" meaning. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 10 23:08:34 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:08:34 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > I don't know about IO, but to the best of my knowledge pretty > much all verbs that begin with u- in OP are formed from the > locative prefix u- < *o-, meaning 'in', 'into' or 'in the context' > of something, plus the root. I think the idea is that once there was a Proto-Siouan prefix *o- 'in' with, hypothetically, the Proto-Siouan morphosyntax (morpheme order): INCLUSIVE-o-PRO-STEM then any verb with a stem starting with *o for other reasons was in danger of being reinterpreted as having that o-locative prefix present, even if the morphosyntax was also different, maybe something like: INCLUSIVE-PRO-o... Imagine that 'cook' was historically just a simple root *ohaN in which of was just an "organic" part of the root. Naturally, once it was reanalyzed as being o 'in' + haN 'cook, boil', it would be easy to take the o 'in' part as referring to the cooking vessel, even if it didn't originally. I can think of several kinds of evidence for this having happened: 1) Some Siouan language retaining the original morphosyntax or something otherwise differing in behavior from the locative pattern in that language. 2) The discovery of forms from outside Siouan that argued for a non-locative origin, e.g., cognates from Catawba or further afield with a shape that argued for PS *ohaN being unitary. They might not start with o, of course, but they should be regularly cognate with *ohaN and not merely *haN. 3) We might wonder about verbs with locative *o that have no semantic need of a locative. Of course, forms like this are not a very strong argument. Maybe we just don't understand their logic! An example parallel with this involves Eskimoan final -p, -t, -k, and -q in nouns. These are the only final stops in most Eastern Eskimoan languages. I think there are some c^ finals in Western Eskimo. A -p is the regular ergative case ending, and -t and -k are the plural and dual endings for the absolutive and ergative cases. Final -q is apparently free of underlying meaning in nouns, but there is a strong tendency to interpret it as the absolutive singular, and to add it as such where it was not historically present or delete it where it belongs but seems to break the pattern. In addition, nouns that underlyingly end in p, k or t are somewhat problematic because the unmarked absolutive form tends to look like an ergative, dual, or plural. These nouns tend to be manhandled in some way to avoid the obscuring of the paradigmatic pattern - deletion of the final consonant, addition of additional elements meaningful or more or less arbitrary, etc. I could probably track down examples if these are required, though it has been a long time since I was at all familiar with the data. I think the examples I noticed occurred with forms cognate with Greenlandic kimmik 'dog' and nanuq 'bear'. I don't remember any nouns ending in p or t off hand, but there may be some. These latter cases, where final p, k or t look like they do something that they don't and get handled as such willy-nilly are the parallels for any Siouan cases where initial *o not a locative has been made into a locative to preserve the pattern. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 00:23:35 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:23:35 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I can think of several kinds of evidence for this having happened: I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know if this has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this point asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might suggest it. From rankin at ku.edu Thu Nov 11 15:22:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:22:00 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes Message-ID: > I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know if this > has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this point > asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of > anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might suggest it. Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the language(s) then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for its putative status as a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an *ahaN or a *ihaN, then the reinforcement would be there and o- could be "seen" by children acquiring the language as a productive prefix. B. From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Nov 11 22:50:43 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:50:43 -0500 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <010d01c4c802$321ae650$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I really doubt that the u- is a locative. I believe it derives from wa based on other evidence. UhoN is one of the verbs does not vary for wa but is used as both an activity 'I am cooking' and an active accomplishment 'I cooked it.' The other verbs which have this variation and don't take wa often (always? I don't have my paper on this right now) are u-verbs. THus, u is functioning as the wa activity marker there. Synchronically, wiu is more phonetically accurate than weo and at least as accurate as wio. I'm not sure what advantages the student obtains by writing -o- in such words. I can't see any. And, it would mess up the general phonological patterning of -o- in Modern Omaha. O never occurs word medially or initially. It's only in the male greeting Aho and in the male illocutionary force enclitic -ho. So, from a synchronic standpoint, I can't see writing it with -o-. But I think that's essentially the debate here synchronic vs. diachronic representation. And that's I think beyond the list. It's like functional vs. formal. I actually just meant to send the original orthography comment to Rory off-list. I mess that up all the time. Sorry for mailbox clutter. -Ardis Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence. I don't know > if this > > has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this > point > > asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of > > anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might > suggest it. > > Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the > language(s) > then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for its > putative status as > a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an *ahaN or a *ihaN, > then the > reinforcement would be there and o- could be "seen" by children > acquiring the > language as a productive prefix. > > B. > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 23:13:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:13:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <1100213443.4193ecc330f44@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > I actually just meant to send the original orthography comment to Rory > off-list. ... Sorry for mailbox clutter. Well, I'm grateful for the mistake. Please clutter as often as you like. Incidentally I agree that one doesn't need o in Omaha-Ponca to write anything but the male ending, even that is just influence from English as to how to write au. Of course, au is rare, essentially restricted to this context, and there's no harm in treating it specially. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 11 23:37:44 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:37:44 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <010d01c4c802$321ae650$02b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the > language(s) then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for > its putative status as a locative. If, on the other hand, there IS an > *ahaN or a *ihaN, then the reinforcement would be there and o- could be > "seen" by children acquiring the language as a productive prefix. I've looked up the CSD set for 'boil, cook': Cr bulu'a Hi mi'rua; also ua 'make fire' PCH *-u'a < **-u'ha (prefix looks like *pr in PMV terms, or maybe *pVr-, *wVr-; the vowel is predictable and is what happens in the first person of r-stems, too) Da o..haN' OP u'haN Ks ohaN Os o'haN Qu ohaN IO uuhaN Wi hohaN PMV o'haN Bi *haaN Tu *hiiehaa I'm not aware of any derivatives of underlying haN using other locatives, but I haven't gone looking very far. I can't find anything on anomalous o-initial forms in Dakotan that matches what I remembered. There is the business that some Dakotan forms occur with two o-locatives, and one of these is oo'he 'a boiling, enough to boil at once' (Buechel). I make 'enough to boil at once' out as 'a kettle-full' or 'a pot-full'. The -aN > -e is because this is nominalized. This occurs in Oo'henuNpa 'Two Kettles' the name of one of the Teton subdivisions. It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is part of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat it as a locative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 00:06:20 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:06:20 -0700 Subject: Other -kV Elements Message-ID: It occurred to me that there is another -kV element that I'd like to distinguish from any "stative formant -ka." This occurs (or is missing) in the verb *o...rak(e) 'to tell', as in Dakota o...yaka, OP u...dha, Os o...dhake, Ks o...yage, Qu o...dake, IO u...rage, Wi ho...rak. Similar forms exist in Southeastern. I have no idea why Omaha-Ponca loses the final *-ge expected, but I don't think it has anything to do with *-ka. Between *-ka, *-k + varying *e/*a, truncations of final *-CV including *-kV to make diminutives, truncations unexplained as in 'tell', loss of final *e in Winnebago, and the shift of final *a to *e after velars in IO and Winnbago it can be a bit difficult to sort out final *-kV sequences in Siouan, though I think everything is consistent and works. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Nov 12 15:54:29 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:54:29 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is part > of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat it as a > locative. Thanks for looking this up, John, and thanks to Bob and Ardis for their comments. So to summarize, it appears that the proto MVS verb *ohaN, 'to cook', may be a unitary lexical item in which the initial *o- is part of the root rather than the locative prefix *o-. In OP and many or all of the present MVS languages, however, the initial *o- has been (re)analyzed as the locative prefix *o- such that affixed pronouns in OP are generally inserted between the *o- (u-) and the -haN, so that OP uhaN' conjugates in the same way as any other (locative prefix) u- verb. This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still recognized as a unitary root? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Fri Nov 12 17:35:14 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:35:14 -0600 Subject: Order of verb affixes Message-ID: I notice in John's recap of the Comparative Dict. entry, that we recorded uuhaN in IO. I wonder if this isn't a reflex of the *wo- prefix Ardis was discussing. It would come out [u-] or possibly [uu] in Omaha, of course and would ultimately be from *wa+o-. Would there be a phonological difference between reflexes of *o- and *wo- in Omaha? Other than probably initial syllable accent, that is? 'Pepper' is a noun and it seems to me ought to have had the initial *wa-. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rory M Larson Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:54 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Order of verb affixes John wrote: > It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is > part of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat > it as a locative. Thanks for looking this up, John, and thanks to Bob and Ardis for their comments. So to summarize, it appears that the proto MVS verb *ohaN, 'to cook', may be a unitary lexical item in which the initial *o- is part of the root rather than the locative prefix *o-. In OP and many or all of the present MVS languages, however, the initial *o- has been (re)analyzed as the locative prefix *o- such that affixed pronouns in OP are generally inserted between the *o- (u-) and the -haN, so that OP uhaN' conjugates in the same way as any other (locative prefix) u- verb. This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still recognized as a unitary root? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:11:24 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:11:24 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D164E61@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I notice in John's recap of the Comparative Dict. entry, that we > recorded uuhaN in IO. The form was from a source coded RR (Bob) and actually written uh. > I wonder if this isn't a reflex of the *wo- prefix Ardis was discussing. > It would come out [u-] or possibly [uu] in Omaha, of course and would > ultimately be from *wa+o-. I wondered about this issue myself. Of course, I don't know how *wo- (I guess *woo'-, really) comes out in IO. I'm confident that it comes out *oo'- in Dhegiha. Winnebago has woo-, but I wonder if it doesn't also have hoo- and if the woo- forms aren't secondary, with w restored. > Would there be a phonological difference between reflexes of *o- and > *wo- in Omaha? Other than probably initial syllable accent, that is? There aren't any reflexes of *wo(o)- in Omaha-Ponca other than u(u)'- as far as I know. That is, there are no instances of wo- or wu-. It is true, as Ardis and I have pointed out, that some u- (*o-) verbs have wa in the third person plural. All nominalizations have u(u)'- with initial stress. The parallelism of these forms with the wa(a)'- and we(e)'- nominalizations is the bulk of the evidence for PMV *woo- > PDH *oo- > OP u(u)'-. The rest of it is the alternation between accentuation and non-accentuation of u in certain paradigms. Note that paradigms that have u'- in the third plural also have aN'gu- in the inclusive, i.e., wa-u- appears as u'- and wa-aNg-u- appears as aN'gu-. So I assume *wa-uN(k)- develops in parallel with *wa-o-. In essence, Omaha-Ponca speakers use a rule whereby accent shifting is an allomorph of wa- with the u-locative forms. Since wa- causes accent shifting in other locative paradigms where it isn't lost, this is not so weird as it seems. Of course, I don't claim that speakers are necessarily aware of this in conscious way. They just know how to manipulate the patterns. Since some verbs do have a "secondary" or innovated wa-, inserted after the u-, I would guess that the wa-u- > u'- pattern is actually is not perfectly transparent. > 'Pepper' is a noun and it seems to me ought to have had the initial > *wa-. That's true, though I don't think that all nominalizations have wa- and so I'm not sure that wa- is a marker of nominalization per se. I think, however, that this is the kind of nominalization that would be expected to have wa-, one in which a non-agent is the head. Notice also that the IO forms include the possibility of a wa-, as well as of an independent "oblique of means" reference. The structure is something like 'that/the herb with which one cooks things'. We haven't said so yet, but I assume all of us are taking the position that these two forms, OP and IO, are more or less exactly parallel in construction because speakers have calqued one from the other (or both from a third form in another language). The forms are then cognate in their constituents because the two languages are so close, or because of that plus some informal recognition of the equivalence or similarity of morphemes. This latter factor would apply if one was calqued from the other and the resulting construction were not quite idiomatic in the target languages. Foe example, in English you can say for effect things like "wrath incarnate" using what I take to be a French order of constituents. (At this point there doesn't need to be a French model for the construction, of course.) I don't think there's any evidence of non-idiomaticity in 'pepper' of course. I suppose one could also argue that the terms for 'pepper' in question were existing, inherited, forms for 'flavoring agent' which have been specialized or reassigned to refer to pepper. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:19:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:19:09 -0700 Subject: Order of verb affixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > This brings us back to my original question about IO. If the IO word > for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as the word in OP, except > that it places the affixed reciprocal pronoun in front of the uhaN > rather than between the u- and the -haN as in OP, then does that mean > that IO normally places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in > other (locative prefix) *o- verbs? If not, isn't that evidence that IO > preserves an older grammatical pattern in which *ohaN is still > recognized as a unitary root? Bear in mind that this is an udhu-form in OP, or the analogous iru-form in IO, not a simple u-form, so the rules are somewhat different than they are for simple locatives. I haven't looked to see if I can find other instances of iru- + reflexive ordering in IO, and I don't have any way to locate a full paradigm for such forms. However, in general IO (and Wi) morphosyntax is pretty close to OP and other languages. First and second person follow locatives; inclusive precede. I think only Dhegiha ever places the agent inclusive aN(g) (or any other inclusives) after the i-locative. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 12 19:34:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:34:04 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) Message-ID: John McLaughlin has kindly provided the following discussion of Numic terms for 'head', which he has allowed me to post to the list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:45:27 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Numic Query Hi, John; Read the Listserv stuff. Here's my reply: The Shoshoni phonemic system does not contain nasalized vowels and /mp/ is phonetically [mb]. Initially, /p/ is unaspirated [p], so the Idaho State spelling system (Loether and Gould) spells the word for 'head, hair' . In the Western Shoshoni system (Miller), it is spelled . Phonetically, final unstressed vowels are devoiced and the devoicing proceeds leftward through the preceding consonants, so /pampi/ in isolation (as a name would be) comes out as [pambi], [pampI], or [paMPI]. Obviously, nineteenth century Anglos didn't recognize final voiceless vowels as anything more than the release of the stop, so nineteenth century recordings of Shoshoni include , (with possessive pronoun prefixed), , , (with 'black' prefixed), , , (with possessive pronoun prefixed). Note, however, that there is no evidence for the loss of the nasal (it's reconstructible) before the stop in Shoshoni. However, in Comanche, the nasal has been lost before the stop and the stop devoiced. How these facts explain 'Pomp/Pompey' is not within my ken, but Clark's not recording a nasal before the stop in /yampa/ and /aniipampi/ (beaverhead) is interesting. It could reflect either Comanche or Southern Ute influence. Both of these languages have lost the nasals before stops so the cognates for Shoshoni /pampi/ and /yampa/ 'wild carrot' are Comanche [papI], [yapA] (reflecting my /papi/ and /yapa/ and Charney's /pa=pi/, /ya=pa/) and So Ute [papI], [yapA] (reflecting /pappi/ and /yappa/, Southern Paiute /pampi/ and /yampa/). The problem, obviously, is that it's unlikely that Clark encountered either Comanches or Utes during his trip and the placename is not in Ute or Comanche country I assume. Interesting problem. I wonder how much Sacajawea's Shoshoni had degraded while in Hidatsa country and whether the Shoshoni nasal-stop clusters might be misrecorded after passing through Hidatsa and French. Hmmmm. John E. McLaughlin, PhD Associate Professor English Dept 3200 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-3200 (435) 797-2738 (voice-office) (435) 723-0847 (voice-home) (435) 797-3797 (fax) mclasutt at brigham.net Program Director USU On-Line Linguistics english.usu.edu/lingnet -----Original Message----- From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:28 PM To: mclasutt at brigham.net Subject: Numic Query John: I wonder if you'd be interested in answering some questions on Numic matters that have come up on the Siouan List? It concerns the possibility that "Pompey" or "Pomp" as the name for Sacagawea's son a/k/a Jean Baptiste might have a Numic origin, or, for that matter, that it might be a variant on Baptiste. I'm sorry - this is probably the most predictable and least interesting question a Numicist can be asked! After possible etymologies for Sacagawea, anyway. I can provide you with the specific posts that led to me thinking of you, or you can find them by searching or browsing at http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/siouan.html. If searching, try Sacagawea or Pompey. If browsing, try the end of October, start of November 2004. Thanks one way or another! John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Nov 12 20:16:22 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:16:22 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, Thanks for sharing John McLaughlin's detailed and helpful discussion (and to him for writing it). > there is no evidence for the loss of the nasal (it's > reconstructible) before the stop in Shoshoni. However, in Comanche, the > nasal has been lost before the stop and the stop devoiced. How these > facts explain 'Pomp/Pompey' is not within my ken, but Clark's not > recording a nasal before the stop in /yampa/ and /aniipampi/ (beaverhead) > is interesting. It could reflect either Comanche or Southern Ute > influence. Both of these languages have lost the nasals before stops so > the cognates for Shoshoni /pampi/ and /yampa/ 'wild carrot' are Comanche > [papI], [yapA] (reflecting my /papi/ and /yapa/ and Charney's /pa=pi/, > /ya=pa/) and So Ute [papI], [yapA] (reflecting /pappi/ and /yappa/, > Southern Paiute /pampi/ and /yampa/). The problem, obviously, is that > it's unlikely that Clark encountered either Comanches or Utes during his > trip and the placename is not in Ute or Comanche country I assume. Seems to me the simplest explanation is that Clark's record *is* from an obsolete Shoshoni dialect. (His transcriptions are, after all, probably the earliest on record of Eastern or Northern Shoshoni.) This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Comanche language is an historically recent offshoot from Shoshoni: -mp- > -p- may be a feature that Comanche shared with a now extinct Shoshoni dialect recorded by Clark. Alan From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Nov 12 23:01:27 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:01:27 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question Message-ID: I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? Thanks. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Nov 12 23:35:31 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:35:31 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John M., Thanks for all the additional background, especially on the timing of he loss of the nasal in Comanche. (That doesn't, of course, preclude the existence of an archaic Shoshoni dialect with the same loss.) > I just looked up "Beaverhead Valley" in > Bill Bright's Glossary of L&C names in Names (2004, 52:163-237) and it is in > Montana, predating Sacajawea's meeting of other Shoshoni speakers. It's > listed as Har na hap pap chah with a note "also called ". > The alternate name reflects actual Shoshoni /hani/ 'beaver' and /pampi/ > 'head', and may reflect Sacajawea's usage AFTER speaking to her relatives in > Idaho and remembering "proper" Shoshoni (assuming that Hane-pompy-hah is > recorded by L&C). "Hane-pompy-hah" wasn't recorded by L&C: it's from Moulton's footnote on p. 176 of vol. 8 of his edition of the Journals where it's given as the suggested Shoshoni original for "Har na Hap pap Chah" (citing an earlier paper by Rees). "Har na Hap pap Chah" was recorded on the expedition's second passage through western Montana, in 1806, months after they met the Shoshoni. The passage from Clark (8.175; 10 July 1806) reads: "proceeded..into that butifull and extensive Vally open and fertile which we Call the beaver head Vally which is the Indian name[,] in their language Har na Hap pap Chah. from the No. of those animals in it & a pt. of land resembling the head of one" > The form with seems to reflect Sacajawea's > pre-Idaho speech, not that of any other Shoshoni at the time. It would be > interesting to see if there are Shoshoni forms recorded by L&C after > Sacajawea spoke with other Shoshonis in Idaho. The word for 'yampa' was, like "Har na Hap pap Chah," also recorded in 1806. The passage from Clark (7.270; 18 May 1806): "The Squar wife to Shabono busied her Self gathering the roots of the fenel Called by the Snake Indians Year pah for the purpose of drying to eate on the Rocky mountains." These seem pretty suggestive of a nasal-dropping Shoshoni dialect. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 01:05:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:05:22 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) Message-ID: Additional comments from John. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:58:53 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Numic Query Here's a reply I sent to Alan Hartley. I tried to send it to "reply all", but I'm not on the list and it only went to Alan. Would you post it on the list for me? Thanks Actually, the earliest records of Comanche in 1786 show that the nasal-stop clusters were still firmly in place decades after they had left their Eastern Shoshoni relatives. Clearly diagnostic forms such as /enka/ 'red', /tympi/ [y is a high back unrounded vowel] 'rock', /nampe/ 'foot', and /-kanty/ 'have' show these clusters still in evidence in the language at that time (modern /eka/, /typi/, /nape/, /-katy/). Even as late as 1828 (the next Comanche data), many words still have nasal-stop clusters. It was not until 1868 recordings that we see no more trace of nasal-stop clusters. I discuss this at length in John E. McLaughlin, 2000, "Language Boundaries and Phonological Borrowing in the Central Numic Languages," Uto-Aztecan: Structural, Temporal, and Geographic Perspectives; ed. Eugene H. Casad & Thomas L. Willet; Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora; pp. 293-303. In that article, I show that the loss of nasal-stop clusters was borrowed into Comanche from neighboring Ute dialects AFTER they arrived on the South Plains. It was not inherited from Eastern Shoshoni. If Sacagawea was the source for the Shoshoni words recorded by Clark with nasal-stop clusters, it seems that interference from Hidatsa and French may have reshaped her personal nasal-stop clusters into nasalized vowel followed by stop. These forms were recorded by Clark before Sacajawea met her relatives in Idaho, so I assume Hidatsa/French influence. When she spoke then with other Shoshoni in Idaho, she was able to refresh her knowledge of Shoshoni through actual use. Obviously, this is just informed speculation. Here are the facts: Comanche lost its nasal-stop clusters about 150 years after they moved onto the South Plains. There is no evidence (except for Clark's recordings of Sacajawea) for the loss of nasal-stop clusters in any dialect of any other Central Numic language. Actually, I just looked up "Beaverhead Valley" in Bill Bright's Glossary of L&C names in Names (2004, 52:163-237) and it is in Montana, predating Sacajawea's meeting of other Shoshoni speakers. It's listed as Har na hap pap chah with a note "also called ". The alternate name reflects actual Shoshoni /hani/ 'beaver' and /pampi/ 'head', and may reflect Sacajawea's usage AFTER speaking to her relatives in Idaho and remembering "proper" Shoshoni (assuming that Hane-pompy-hah is recorded by L&C). The form with seems to reflect Sacajawea's pre-Idaho speech, not that of any other Shoshoni at the time. It would be interesting to see if there are Shoshoni forms recorded by L&C after Sacajawea spoke with other Shoshonis in Idaho. John E. McLaughlin, PhD Associate Professor English Dept 3200 Old Main Hill Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-3200 (435) 797-2738 (voice-office) (435) 723-0847 (voice-home) (435) 797-3797 (fax) mclasutt at brigham.net Program Director USU On-Line Linguistics english.usu.edu/lingnet From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Nov 13 01:23:00 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:23:00 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: RE: Numic Query (fwd)] Message-ID: At John M.'s request-- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Numic Query (fwd) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:42:49 -0700 From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin To: Alan H. Hartley Maybe we can arm-wrestle and settle the matter :) If there were another nasal-dropping Central Numic dialect, these two words are the only evidence of it. Since Sacajawea lived so long with people who didn't have nasal-stop clusters, but had nasal vowels instead (Hidatsa and French), language interference on her part just seems more likely to me. Anyway, that's the evidence and we've probably said and done about all we can do or say about it. Cheers to you Siouanists. Remember, all your tribes' horses were at one point stolen out of Mexico by a Comanche! Uto-Aztecanists rule :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 01:42:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:42:03 -0700 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Before we go very far with the lost dialect theory of nasal dropping, it might be worth noting the particular status of nasals in Hidatsa. It's true that Siouan languages typically have nasal vowels, but Crow and Hidatsa do not. In the modern languages the contrast between PS nasal and oral vowels is neutralized in favor of orality. In such a situation, a form like CVNCV would not contrast with CVCV or might occur in free variation with it. Perhaps the unnasalized Shoshone forms represent the influence of Hidatsa on Sacagawea's speech. Note that there's a pretty strong tendency for VNC to be pronounced with an intrusive nasal stop in at least Omaha-Ponca. I'm not sure how far that tendency occurs in other languages. There are nasal segments in modern Crow and Hidatsa, but these are not usually depicted as contrastive. As far as I can recall the rules they are, for Crow /w/ (to use Kaschube's notation), b when simple and non-final, m when final and mm when geminate. For Crow /r/ (Kaschube again), d initially, l medially, n finally, and nn in geminates. Of course the change in the scheme of writing /w/ and /r/ are not the only differences between Kaschube's system and the current popular orthography. The popular scheme is close to the auditory quality of the sounds to English ears. The rules for Hidatsa, again by recollection, are that /w/ and /r/ are pronounced (and often written) as m and n in initial position. The distribution of nasality in Mandan, so closely associated today with Hidatsa is somewhat different. Kennard depicts something more or less comparable to Dakota, but Hollow concluded that w and r have the allophones m and n before nasal vowels and decided in the spirit of the time to write w and r in those cases, too, since the nasality of m and n was conditioned. Kaufman argued in his unpublished work on Proto-Siouan (which I know only from some summary sheets discussed in a class conducted by David Rood) that nasal stops were also conditioned entirely by nasal vowels in Tutelo and Winnebago. I don't really know of any counter arguments to either claim. In most other Siouan languages the situation is either that a few anomalous forms seem to have nasal stops where no nasal vowel is present, e.g., mi 'sun' in IO (not sure of this), or not to have nasal stops when one is, e.g., Da wiNyaN 'woman'. Sometimes nasals also arise regularly from other sources, e.g., OP has m and n for *W and *R (not *w and *r) whether or not the following vowel is nasal, e.g., ine'gi 'uncle' cf. Teton Da leks^i' 'uncle'. To the extent that Siouan languages lack nasal stops and have m n etc. only where an adjacent nasal vowel acts upon w r etc. it is natural that the loss of nasalization in vowels in Crow and Hidatsa would allow a new distribution of nasality to unfold. I believe that the distribution or occurence of nasal stops is anomalous in Plains Algonquian, but I don't know the details. It sounds like loss of nasals might be "in the air" in the Plains, if it affects Comanche, too. In early transcriptions of Crow and Hidatsa b m etc. and d l n etc. often seem to be in free alternations. Washington Matthews more or less systematized his Hidatsa usage, but he comments on the difficulties. Randy Graczyk presented a paper a number of years ago in which he looked at the freely varying forms in older transcriptions and concluded that - for Crow, anyway - there was some tendency for #mV and #nV to occur where the following vowel was nasal in cognates elsewhere in Siouan, and, conversely, for #bV and #dV to occur where it was nasal. He hypothesized that vowel nasality was in the process of being lost in the early contact period. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Sat Nov 13 15:24:39 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:24:39 -0600 Subject: Numic Query (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I wonder if you'd be interested in answering some questions on Numic > matters that have come up on the Siouan List? It concerns the possibility > that "Pompey" or "Pomp" as the name for Sacagawea's son a/k/a Jean > Baptiste might have a Numic origin, or, for that matter, that it might be > a variant on Baptiste. In the interesting discussion of disappearing Shoshoni dialects and Hidatsa interference with Sacagawea's Sh. pronunciation, I lost sight of my original suggestion, which is that "Pomp" is from (Anglo-American) "Pompey" rather than from Sh. pampi 'head.' Whether Sacagawea's pronunciation was idiolectic or dialectic, the fact is that she apparently didn't pronounce the -m-, and if she didn't pronounce the -m-, it's unlikely she would have named her son "Pomp" (rather than, say, "Pop"). As to Shoshoni dialect, John M. pointed out that Clark's Sh. words were more likely to be accurately recorded AFTER the expedition encountered the Shoshoni people en masse, and both Sh. words under discussion are attested from that later period. The explanation that these forms represent otherwise undocumented Sh. dialect pronunciations has the Occamic advantage of being simpler (given the present state of our knowledge) than the one positing a likewise undocumented phonetic interference between Sacagawea's Hidatsa superstrate and her Sh. substrate. We don't have enough data so far to choose between the idiolect and dialect explanations of Sacagawea's pronunciation, but I think we do have enough to say that Pomp = Pompey. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 19:32:21 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:32:21 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? The only think I could think of was that maybe the l was a misreading of an apostrophe. The dot or accent seems to be missing from the s. Of course, I don't know the context in which the form occurred which led to the inquiry. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Nov 13 20:43:41 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:43:41 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs Message-ID: Here's the inflectional pattern for u-verbs in Omaha Ponca: ua'ne 'I seek it' 90:17.6 udha'ne 'you seek him' 90:283.4 una'=bi=ama 'he sought him' 90:265.18 aNgu'na=i 'we seek him' 90:385.19 u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 u'ne maNdhiN ama 'he was seeking them' 90:561.11 u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 The references are to Dorsey, of course. I tried to stick with the stem u...ne' 'to seek, hunt (for)', but had to slip in some from u...ttaN' 'to put on shoes' and u...gi'ttaN 'to put on one's own shoes'. I've included one anomalous 'I > them' form that is probably an 'I > it' form or misrecorded. Sample u'-nouns, presumably u'- < *wo'-: u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 u't?e 'death; means or cause or place of death' 90:23.6 u'?iN 'pack(s)' u'nase '(a) surround; chasing (hunting) place' 90:44.1, 90:45.5 u's^kaN 'deed' 90:58.16 Inflection of udhu-verbs: udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 wi'udhagina' 'you told them about their own' 90:764.1 wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 I've tried to stick to the stem udhu'...he 'to follow (something) by means of; to follow a trail/tracks', but I had to supplement from udhu'...kkie 'to talk to someone about something' and udhu'...gidha 'to tell one's own about something' (maybe 'to tell someone about their own'). There is some variation in the marking (or occurrence) of accent in the wi'u- < *wa-i-o- and wiaN'gu- < *wa-i-uNk-o- sequences. I think this is just variation in handling wii'u- and wii'aN-, both in essence a three-mora diphthong. Interesting as showing also the second person object: aNdhaN'gudhihe aNgaN'dha=i 'we wish to follow you (in your deeds)' 90:735.15 Anomalous are: aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 By the by, I found the following verb: udhu'haN=bi=ama 'he cooked together (turnips and paunch)' 90:256.14 This is, of course, the non-reflexive underlying stem for 'pepper'. uhaN' 'to cook something' (cf. 90:21.13) > u'haN 'to cook things' (cf. 90:112.10) udhu'haN 'to cook one thing with another' (cf. 90:256.14) > wi'uhaN 'to cook things together' (not in the texts) ukki'haN 'to cook for oneself' (cf. 90:181.13) > u'kkihaN 'to cook things for oneself' (not in texts) udhu'kkihaN 'to cook together for oneself' (not in texts) > wi'ukkihaN 'to cook things together for oneself' (not in hte texts) The forms with the ">" are the wa-forms. It is mostly not possible to distinguish wa 'them' from wa 'things, detransitivizer' in OP, as far as I can see, except that with dh-stems, wa- 'them' seems to be accented. In the context the analysis this last is more like 'something cooked together with other things for oneself', which, modulo the complicating benefactive reflexive, is just what Rory concluded. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Nov 13 21:00:51 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:00:51 -0700 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question resolved, probably In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It turns out, with further probing, that the spelling I was given is the result of a non-speaker trying to write something dictated over the telephone and then "spelled" by the dictator. Sigh. Sorry to bother you all with this. I can usually field questions of this sort myself, but this one seemed just likely enough to be a possible variant. Thanks for your thoughts. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? > > The only think I could think of was that maybe the l was a misreading of > an apostrophe. The dot or accent seems to be missing from the s. Of > course, I don't know the context in which the form occurred which led to > the inquiry. > From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 13 23:30:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:30:48 -0600 Subject: WAIL meeting call for papers. Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 21-23, 2005 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its eighth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive studies of the indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. Please indicate your source(s) of data in the abstract. For co-authored papers, please indicate who plans to present the paper as well as who will be in attendance. For email submissions, include the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Include the following information in the body of the email message: (1) your name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract, along with a 3x5 card with the information from the body of the email. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 15, 2005 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2005. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Y?ez Mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles, which is approximately 90 miles southeast of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776, or check out our website under 'events' at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Nov 14 18:25:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:25:15 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Commentary, u-verbs: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 > u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 > u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 Except for the anomalous first person example, which I omitted here, these plural third person object forms all have initial accent and presumably an initial long vowel for the locative or inclusive pronoun reflecting contraction of wa- with the initial followed by loss of w before the rounded vowel of u- IN or aNg- A12. The latter counts as rounded because it is from *uNk- (cf. Dakotan). If we ever conclude that there are three nasal vowels in OP (or Dhegiha in general), then perhaps the one in aNg- is back/rounded anyway. Of course, the rules given here reflect the history of the forms. I think that a description of contemporary OP has to think in terms of initial accent/length as a reflex of wa- 'them' and wa- INDEF with u-stems. The same thing happens wrt nominalizations in wa- of u-verbs, whether we treat this as a third wa- DETRANS or a variant on wa- INDEF. > Sample u'-nouns, presumably u'- < *wo'-: > > u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 > Inflection of udhu-verbs: > > udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 > udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 > aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 The udhu- here is from *iro-, in other words the combination of the *i- and *o- locatives. These seem to have been formed, if the paradigm is taken into account, by adding i followed by epenthetic dh and then assimilating i across epenthetic dh to the following u or aN. Except for assimilating i to u across dh, this is basically the assimilative behavior exhibited with the i- and u-locatives throughout Dhegiha. The result of this pattern of formation is that the inclusive aNg- A1 appears between the i-locative and the u-locative, resulting in aN-dh-aNg-u- < *i-r-uNk-o-. My impression is that in Dakota the inclusives of these forms inflect by treating corresponding iyo- as a chunk and inserting uN(k) Pro12 after it: iyo-uN-. I don't know how the inclusives work in IO or Winnebago. In Dakotan and WInnebaog the first person follows all of the locatives as in OP. > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 > wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 > wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 > wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 In the wa- third person plurals, the epenthetic dh is either not produced or is "squeezed out" and wa-i- contracts to wi- or probably wii-. Another way to look at is that the "pre-composed" contraction wii- is added. "Precomposition" is basically a way of talking about analogical spread. All of the u- and udhu- forms are essentially regular for accentuation if we assume that accent is on the second mora and that contractions of wa-u- or wa-i- yield two mora (long) results. The only exceptions to regularity concern the VVV sequences that arise in the third person plurals of the udhu-forms. Either the way in which accent is perceived in wiiV- is a bit variable, or there are some actual variations. I don't know which, but my suspicion is that all onset diphthongs - uV, iV, eV - are treated as onset + VV in less careful speech and that even if the onset arises from a long vowel, it can lose accent to the following vowel as that becomes the sonority peak of the syllable. As a result VVV sequences tend to collapse to VV sequences. This probably accounts for accent shifting in other VV sequences, e.g., muu'=ase > mw=a'ase, or ee'(=)(?)aN > eaNaN', and so on. I think I'm correct in saying that e in ea and eaN sequences is not [ey(a)], but a sort of open e or aesc that proceeds transitionlessly into the following vowel, and is less prominent (maybe shorter?) than the following vowel. It has been a while since I heard the examples, however. A parallel development occurs in Winnebago, where hi-a- (*i-locative + first person agent) > yaa-, and ho-a- (*o-locative + fist person agent) > waa-. I assume this is an areal tendency, not an inherited one! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Nov 14 19:33:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:33:33 -0700 Subject: Dorsey Texts Message-ID: I've been meaning to say that I recently keyed in the missing couple of texts from the front of Dorsey 1890 (in SA format). I'll be happy to send them to anyone who wants them. An offline inquiry would mean less clutter on the list. John E. Koontz From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Nov 14 22:05:23 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:05:23 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for demonstrating the u- pattern, John. I think I've been a little obtuse on this subject up until now, because I've been following a paradigm that is either mistaken, or at best a recent innovation. I had thought we had it nailed down with our speakers that 'them (anim.)' in u- verbs was handled as u-wa'-[root]. I had supposed that u- verbs took the accent on the second syllable and that u- nouns were accented on the first syllable, simply as a mechanism for distinguishing nouns from verbs. I know the process of *wa-o'- => *wo'- => OP u'- has been mentioned on the list before, but somehow it never quite clicked. Now I'd like to go through your list, parsing them out by underlying morphology, and raise a few more questions on the way. > ua'ne 'I seek it' 90:17.6 *o-a'-[root] I -> 3sg > udha'ne 'you seek him' 90:283.4 *o-ra'-[root] you -> 3sg > una'=bi=ama 'he sought him' 90:265.18 *o-[root]' 3sg -> 3sg > aNgu'na=i 'we seek him' 90:385.19 *uNk-o'-[root] we -> 3sg > u'agittaN 'I put on my own (shoes)' 90:43.9 *wa-o'-a-gi-[root] I -> 3pl? > ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 *o-a'-[root] I -> 3(sg?/pl.inanimate?) > u'dhattaN=z^i 'you have not put them on (shoes)' 90:45.6 *wa-o'-ra-[root] you -> 3pl? My question here is that I thought wa- as 'them' was restricted to animates. Two of these three cases seem to show that shoes as 'them' take wa-. > u'ne maNdhiN ama 'he was seeking them' 90:561.11 *wa-o'-[root] 3sg -> 3pl > u'na=i 'they sought them' 90:419.18 *wa-o'-[root] 3pl -> 3pl > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 *uNk-wa'-o-[root] we -> 3pl This one is interesting because it suggests that the rule of shifting accent forward in u- verbs to indicate an underlying wa- has been generalized to the extent of shifting it off the *wa-o- => u- syllable itself. If that weren't the case, the above example should have come out *aNgu'na=i. > u'z^iha 'sack' 90:17.10 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u't?e 'death; means or cause or place of death' 90:23.6 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u'?iN 'pack(s)' *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u-verb) > u'nase '(a) surround; chasing (hunting) place' 90:44.1, 90:45.5 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > u's^kaN 'deed' 90:58.16 *wa-o'-[root] NOM(u- verb) > udhu'ahe 'I followed her' 90:199.18 *i-o'-a-[root] I -> 3sg > udhu'dhahe 'you follow her' 90:194.6 *i-o'-ra-[root] you -> 3sg > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 *i-wa'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.anim. In this case, the accent does not move forward. > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'she followed it (a trail)' 90:290.7 *i-o'-[root] 3sg -> 3sg.inan. > aNdhaN'guhe=tta=i=the 'we will follow it (the trail)' 90:438.17 *i-uNk'-o-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 *wa-i'-o-a-kki-[root] I -> 3sg?.anim? In this case, the accent moves back. > wi'udhakkie 'you talked to them about it' 90:484.3 *wa-i'-o-ra-kki-[root] you -> 3pl.anim. > wi'udhagina' 'you told them about their own' 90:764.1 *wa-i'-o-ra-gi-[root] you -> 3pl.anim. > wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 *wa-i'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.inan. Again, we seem to have a wa- for inanimate 'them'. > wiu'ha=i 'they followed them' 90:440.1 *wa-i'-o-[root] 3pl -> 3pl.anim. Again, the accent moves back. > wiaN'guha=i 'we followed them (trails)' 90:419.14 *wa-i'-uNk-o-[root] we -> 3pl.inan. Again, a wa- for inanimate 'them'. > aNdhaN'gudhihe aNgaN'dha=i 'we wish to follow you (in your deeds)' 90:735.15 *i-uNk'-o-ri-[root] uNk-[root]' we -> you > aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 *o-uNk'-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. The 'we' affixed pronoun is inserted after the *o- rather than before it. > we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 *wa-i'-o-[root] uNk-[root] we -> 3pl.anim. The non-final verb in a verb chain is not inflected for subject as it could be. I suspect that the subject marker is optional in this position. If none is specified where one could be, that verb is parsed as an adverb. > udhu'haN=bi=ama 'he cooked together (turnips and paunch)' 90:256.14 *i-o'-[root] > This is, of course, the non-reflexive underlying stem for 'pepper'. > > uhaN' 'to cook something' (cf. 90:21.13) *o-[root]' > > u'haN 'to cook things' (cf. 90:112.10) *wa-o'-[root] > udhu'haN 'to cook one thing with another' (cf. 90:256.14) *i-o'-[root] > > wi'uhaN 'to cook things together' (not in the texts) *wa-i'-o-[root] > ukki'haN 'to cook for oneself' (cf. 90:181.13) *o-kki'-[root] Here's something I hadn't noticed before. I had thought of this kki- as a straight-up reflexive, such that the above should mean 'to cook oneself'. But I guess we do the same thing in English too. There is a difference between "I'm going to kill myself" and "I'm going to kill myself a bear". > > u'kkihaN 'to cook things for oneself' (not in texts) *wa-o'-kki-[root] > udhu'kkihaN 'to cook together for oneself' (not in texts) *i-o'-kki-[root] > > wi'ukkihaN 'to cook things together for oneself' (not in hte texts) *wa-i'-o-kki-[root] > In the context the analysis this last is more like 'something cooked > together with other things for oneself', which, modulo the complicating > benefactive reflexive, is just what Rory concluded. Now this brings up a couple of other things I'm a little vague on. First, that i- there. In many contexts, i- means that the verb action is accomplished by means of the foregoing. In others, it seems the i- is some sort dative pointer or something. Here, you seem to be interpreting it to mean 'together with'. Just what kind of salience does i- have, anyway? Is it just one morpheme, or multiple sound-alikes? Second, that kki-. The interpretation here is that it is the reflexive affix, which Dorsey indicates with an inverted or dotted 'k'. But Dorsey distinguishes another affix ki-, which he writes with upright 'k', which seems to indicate reciprocal action: "they do it to each other". I used to suppose that this reciprocal ki- was kHi-, until our speakers corrected me: both reciprocal and reflexive were pronounced kki-. With regard to 'pepper', I had been assuming that that kki- was the reciprocal affix, not the reflexive, and that that was the element that meant 'together with'. Comments? Finally, once again, what about the salience of wa-, 'them'? Is it for any plurality, as some of Dorsey's examples would seem to show, or is it restricted to animates, as I've been supposing? Perhaps usage is variant in modern Omaha? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sun Nov 14 22:39:36 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:39:36 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: >> aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 > > Except for the anomalous first person example, which I omitted here, these > plural third person object forms all have initial accent and presumably an > initial long vowel for the locative or inclusive pronoun reflecting > contraction of wa- with the initial followed by loss of w before the > rounded vowel of u- IN or aNg- A12. The latter counts as rounded because > it is from *uNk- (cf. Dakotan). If we ever conclude that there are three > nasal vowels in OP (or Dhegiha in general), then perhaps the one in aNg- > is back/rounded anyway. That makes sense. So we should parse that as: *wa-uNk'-o-[root] In that case, the accent falls on the first syllable naturally, without having to assume generalization of a rule of shifting the accent forward to indicate underlying wa-, as I suggested in my last posting. In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our speakers insist that the sequence *uNk-o'-[root] should be pronounced ugu'-[root], not aNgu'-[root] as Dorsey records it. That would seem to be independent corroboration of the conservative back/rounded nature of OP aNg- that John proposes above. Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:48:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:48:29 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > .. I've been following a paradigm that is either mistaken, or at best a > recent innovation. I had thought we had it nailed down with our > speakers that 'them (anim.)' in u- verbs was handled as u-wa'-[root]. Nope, the u-wa'- forms definitely occur with some verbs. Very likely what you have encountered is essentially what is in Dorsey. I didn't do the wa-using u-verbs. They mostly have subjects not only animate, but human as I recall. I should probably have mentioned them again, but I had mentioned them earlier and I was (believe it or not) trying to cut things short! > > ua'ttaN 'I am putting on (a shoe? shoes?)' 90:45.6 > > *o-a'-[root] I -> 3(sg?/pl.inanimate?) This one is anomalous, either as glossed or as accented. It is possible that either one is wrong. > My question here is that I thought wa- as 'them' was restricted to > animates. Two of these three cases seem to show that shoes as 'them' > take wa-. An excellent point! I have no explanation. > > aN'guna=i 'we hunted them' 90:434.2 > > *uNk-wa'-o-[root] we -> 3pl I make it *wa-uN'k-o-. > This one is interesting because it suggests that the rule of shifting > accent forward in u- verbs to indicate an underlying wa- has been > generalized to the extent of shifting it off the *wa-o- => u- syllable > itself. If that weren't the case, the above example should have come > out *aNgu'na=i. However, I did initially womnder if it wasn't generalization of accent myself. > > udhu'ha=bi=ama 'he followed them (elk)' 90:72.7 > > *i-wa'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.anim. > > In this case, the accent does not move forward. I think there's no wa in this form, so the glossing is anomalous. It probably should be 'he followed it (the trail of the elk)'. > > wiu'akkie" 'I spoke to him (?) [(?) in orig.] about it' 91:120.13 > > *wa-i'-o-a-kki-[root] I -> 3sg?.anim? > > In this case, the accent moves back. But I tend to think that pronunication of wi'u- alternates with wiu'-, or at least the transcription does. > > wi'uha=bi=ama 'he followed them (trails)' 90:149.8 > > *wa-i'-o-[root] 3sg -> 3pl.inan. > > Again, we seem to have a wa- for inanimate 'them'. Which I hadn't noticed. Maybe it's less a question of animacy than a specific perception of multiplicity, far more likely to be considered with animates. > > aNwaN'ha 'we followed their trail' 90:440.16 > > *o-uNk'-[root] we -> 3sg.inan. > > The 'we' affixed pronoun is inserted after the *o- rather than before > it. Yes. > > we'uhe aNmaN'dhiN=i 'following them we walked' 90:419.15 > > *wa-i'-o-[root] uNk-[root] we -> 3pl.anim. > > The non-final verb in a verb chain is not inflected for subject as it > could be. I suspect that the subject marker is optional in this > position. If none is specified where one could be, that verb is parsed > as an adverb. Yes. This looks like a case where the subordinate verb isn't inflected - what we might call progressive syntax. > Here's something I hadn't noticed before. I had thought of this kki- as > a straight-up reflexive, such that the above should mean 'to cook > oneself'. But I guess we do the same thing in English too. There is a > difference between "I'm going to kill myself" and "I'm going to kill > myself a bear". That's an example I hadn't thought of. Good parallel, thoyugh I think the Omaha forms never have both options. Anyway, I aven;t noticed one yet. I think the first benefactive reflexive I noticed was ukkine 'to hunt for for oneself'. > Now this brings up a couple of other things I'm a little vague on. > First, that i- there. In many contexts, i- means that the verb action > is accomplished by means of the foregoing. In others, it seems the i- > is some sort dative pointer or something. Here, you seem to be > interpreting it to mean 'together with'. Just what kind of salience > does i- have, anyway? Is it just one morpheme, or multiple > sound-alikes? I got the 'together with' reading from the original text example of udhuhaN, in which paunch meat (a stomach?) was being cooked with wild turnips. The i- aloows adding the addition thing cooked. Note this example from the LaFlesche Osage dicionary, though: i'-tha-tse 'to eat one thing with another' (p. 79a). This would be idhathe (ithatHe) in Omaha-Ponca, if it exists there. In this case the i- 'together with' is not a second locative. I think what the i- does with u- in udhu- (*iru-) is allow adding one more argument. So with udhuhe it is 'follow a route (first arg.) by means of something, i.e., by means of tracks (second arg.). In udhuie we have 'talk with someone (first arg.) about something (second arg.)'. In udhuhaN we have 'cook something (first arg.) with something else (second arg.)'. But i- alone is also adding an additional arugment, as in the idhathe 'eat something with something else' case. Now whether this i- is the same as i- 'by means of' I can't say. The latter could be a specialization of the former. As could be the former of the latter, if you think about it. The distinction may be more a matter of English glossing than anything. I don't know of any paradigmatic or syntactic differences. I'm inclined to say it's all one morpheme, because I can't distinguish between them in terms fo anything but the English gloss. How about i- in i'bahaN 'to think'? > Second, that kki-. The interpretation here is that it is the reflexive > affix, which Dorsey indicates with an inverted or dotted 'k'. But > Dorsey distinguishes another affix ki-, which he writes with upright > 'k', which seems to indicate reciprocal action: "they do it to each > other". I used to suppose that this reciprocal ki- was kHi-, until our > speakers corrected me: both reciprocal and reflexive were pronounced > kki-. I think that reciprocal is just a use of the reflexive. > With regard to 'pepper', I had been assuming that that kki- was the > reciprocal affix, not the reflexive, and that that was the element that > meant 'together with'. Comments? Either reciprocal or benefactive reflexive works, but perhaps the i- covers the reciprocality aspect already. > Finally, once again, what about the salience of wa-, 'them'? Is it for > any plurality, as some of Dorsey's examples would seem to show, or is it > restricted to animates, as I've been supposing? Perhaps usage is > variant in modern Omaha? Good questions. I wonder what Ardis has discovered about this? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:55:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:55:10 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: > In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our > speakers insist that the sequence > > *uNk-o'-[root] > > should be pronounced > > ugu'-[root], > > not > > aNgu'-[root] Interesting! No perceptible nasalization? > as Dorsey records it. That would seem to be independent corroboration > of the conservative back/rounded nature of OP aNg- that John proposes > above. It may be time to look again at the "back" nasal(s). I've been wondering if there's anything in the Ponca decision to opt for aN vs. the Omaha one to opt for oN. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 16:56:45 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:56:45 -0700 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > Nope, the u-wa'- forms definitely occur with some verbs. Very likely what > you have encountered is essentially what is in Dorsey. I didn't do the > wa-using u-verbs. They mostly have subjects not only animate, but human > as I recall. Oops, I meant "objects" not subjects! From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 18:25:10 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:25:10 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? From rwd0002 at unt.edu Mon Nov 15 18:41:34 2004 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:41:34 -0600 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Quoting shannon west : > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. > It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > A common word for "white man" in Interior Salish and Sahaptin, right? I don't think it is Dakotan. I would ask the Sahaptianists or Salishanists, or maybe even northernmost Numicists. Willem de Reuse From phute-khniyanyan at cfl.rr.com Mon Nov 15 18:59:58 2004 From: phute-khniyanyan at cfl.rr.com (phute-khniyanyan) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:59:58 -0500 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: shannon west wrote: >I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > > > > Could be 'ksuyeyapi'. From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Nov 15 19:24:21 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:24:21 +0100 Subject: vocab word In-Reply-To: <23777082373652.23736522377708@shaw.ca> Message-ID: > > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't > place it. Ideas? Riggs gives the Dakota word suya, adv. rightly, well from su 'seed' In Lakota wasuyA means 'to make a law, to judge" I know wasuyA is used both in old texts and among contemporary speakers, but I have never heard among speakers or seen in any dictionary suyA, which would be expected vt of wa-suyA. However, both Dakota and Lakota use yusu, vt 'to make right, to make ready'. So to me, the causative form suyA seems likely but I don't find any evidence to support its existence. But I think it is not impossible that a vt form perishes, but its wa- form survives. I am just guessing but perhaps examples could be found. Jan --- Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 19:20:18 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:20:18 -0700 Subject: Dorsey Texts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > I've been meaning to say that I recently keyed in the missing couple of > texts from the front of Dorsey 1890 (in SA format). To clarify this mysterious offer, the whole set of Dorsey texts, 1890 and 1891, were keyed as text files by the Siouan Archives Project (Rood & Taylor and many students) at the U of Colorado during the 1970s. The material was prepared in a notation I loosely referred to as Siouan Archives (SA) format which allowed encoding the arbitrary notation of old and new publications on Siouan Languages using the resources of a small 6-bit character set and punch cards, UmaN'haN becomes +UMA$N*HA$N, for example. The first two Dorsey 1890 texts were selected by David Rood as a sample to pass to a programmer who was going to create some retrieval software. He never did, and the decks were lost. (Just to clarify, the programmer was *not* me, even though it sounds like there might have been some sort of kinship of spirit.) When I first got interested in the Omaha and Ponca langauge David gave me access to the remainder of the file and explained why the first couple of texts were missing. I thought, "Heck, I should just type those in again." A small section of the road to hell is paved with my good intentions, as everyone knows. Anyway, finally, 20 years later, I have keyed in those two texts. Now, on to the second thing on my list. My hat is off to the original SA team. I nearly went crazy typing those two texts in, even though I was using a text editor, not a cranky key punch with no display device and only limited correction mechanisms. I also allowed myself to use lowercase and real question marks, exclamation marks, etc., instead of the special SA codes for them. I had to use SA notation otherwise both for reasons of consistency and in order to properly encode some things like breves that SA notation handles, though more modern schemes aimed at modern Siouanist usage do not. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 15 19:44:34 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:44:34 -0600 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: Can't ID it via Kansa or Quapaw. KS suhu is 'bare' and su alone is 'seed'. Wish I could be of more help. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shannon west Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:25 PM To: Siouan List Subject: vocab word I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:14:28 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:14:28 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: rwd0002 at unt.edu Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:41 am Subject: Re: vocab word > Quoting shannon west : > > > I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. > > It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't place it. Ideas? > > > A common word for "white man" in Interior Salish and Sahaptin, > right? Yep. Didn't want to poison the question though. :) > I don't > think it is Dakotan. It sure looks like it though! Not that that means it is, but I figured this was a good place to ask. > I would ask the Sahaptianists or > Salishanists, or maybe > even northernmost Numicists. Well, it was a Salishanist who had me ask here. He says there is no known etymology for the word in Salish. I know someone in Sahaptin studies, so I'll give him a try next. Thanks for the idea. From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:09:01 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:09:01 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rankin, Robert L" Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:44 am Subject: RE: vocab word > Can't ID it via Kansa or Quapaw. KS suhu is 'bare' and su alone is > 'seed'. Wish I could be of more help. No problem. :) I recognised su as 'seed' also, but the -ya ending didn't work for me there. Thanks anyway! Shannon From shanwest at shaw.ca Mon Nov 15 20:23:00 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (shannon west) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:23:00 -0800 Subject: vocab word Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: phute-khniyanyan Date: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:59 am Subject: Re: vocab word > shannon west wrote: > > >I was wondering if any of you recognise the word 'suyapi' as a > Siouan word. It sure looks like something Dakotan, but I can't > place it. Ideas? > > > > > > > > > Could be 'ksuyeyapi'. Could you elaborate? My mind has become full of Lacand??n lately, and there isn't so much room for Dakotan vocabulary. :) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 15 23:59:15 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:59:15 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: A question that came up off the list leads me to post the following concerning certain Omaha-Ponca forms that have a reflexive form, but a benefactive reading (reflexively benefactive, of course). I was wondering if these occurred elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Dakota? These are not benefactives in the usual Dakotan sense (a second dative in (k)ic^i) or the usual OP sense (just a standard dative or maybe an igi- form). They are "reflexive forms with reflexively benefactive force." For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly reflexive reading), or gaghe 'to make' yields kkikkaghe 'to make something for oneself' as opposed to 'to make onself', or dhize 'to get' yields kkigdhize 'to get something for oneself' not 'to get oneself'. For the relevant stems the reflexive/reciprocal form has a "benefactively reflexive" or "reflexively benefactive" reading '*for* oneself' instead of a simple reflexive reading 'oneself'. I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in OP. On the other hand, the morphology of the suus and reflexive is the same across Dhegiha. I seem to remember benefactive reflexives in Osage. I assume they are everywhere in Dhegiha, just a bit obscure and easy to miss. I don't remember when I first noticed these in OP. It was a while ago, but after my initial OP sketch was written. I still remember the combination of "Aha!" and "Oops!" The problem in the sketch is that I concentrated on form and only took function into account secondarily and negligently. And, of course, I had only been looking at things a year or two. I don't recall seeing "benefactive reflexives" mentioned anywhere else in the literature, either, but they definitely occur in OP. From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 16 00:02:40 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:02:40 -0800 Subject: Siouan stops Message-ID: Hi, Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation is in other Siouan languages for comparison. Thanks, Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Nov 16 04:04:05 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:04:05 -0500 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting Koontz John E : > A question that came up off the list leads me to post the following > concerning certain Omaha-Ponca forms that have a reflexive form, but a > benefactive reading (reflexively benefactive, of course). I was wondering > if these occurred elsewhere in Siouan, e.g., in Dakota? In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' I have to say that describing the KI morphemes almost cost me my sanity - it's a very slippery category. Linda > > These are not benefactives in the usual Dakotan sense (a second dative in > (k)ic^i) or the usual OP sense (just a standard dative or maybe an igi- > form). They are "reflexive forms with reflexively benefactive force." > > For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek > something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly > reflexive reading), or gaghe 'to make' yields kkikkaghe 'to make something > for oneself' as opposed to 'to make onself', or dhize 'to get' yields > kkigdhize 'to get something for oneself' not 'to get oneself'. > > For the relevant stems the reflexive/reciprocal form has a "benefactively > reflexive" or "reflexively benefactive" reading '*for* oneself' instead of > a simple reflexive reading 'oneself'. > > I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not > 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple > datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, > iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). > > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > OP. On the other hand, the morphology of the suus and reflexive is the > same across Dhegiha. I seem to remember benefactive reflexives in Osage. > I assume they are everywhere in Dhegiha, just a bit obscure and easy to > miss. > > I don't remember when I first noticed these in OP. It was a while ago, > but after my initial OP sketch was written. I still remember the > combination of "Aha!" and "Oops!" The problem in the sketch is that I > concentrated on form and only took function into account secondarily and > negligently. And, of course, I had only been looking at things a year or > two. I don't recall seeing "benefactive reflexives" mentioned anywhere > else in the literature, either, but they definitely occur in OP. > > > > From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Nov 16 04:31:50 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:31:50 -0500 Subject: Siouan stops In-Reply-To: <20041116000240.57740.qmail@web53808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Quoting David Kaufman : > Hi, > > Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? > I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is > representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that > floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation > is in other Siouan languages for comparison. > > Thanks, > Dave Dakotan languages do, but in Assiniboine there is a broadly applied rule that voices simple stops intervocalically across both syllable and word boundaries so that the simple stops (and the affricate) surface as voiced at least 90% of the time. You will sometimes find Asb characterized as having a contrast of voiced vs. voiceless-aspirated stops (e.g., Hollow 1970), and voiced segments are used exclusively for simple unaspirated stops in some popular orthographies, but a spectrographic study I did a couple years ago (and reported on at the Siouan conference at Anadarko) indicated that Asb stops in fact have a [+/- asp] contrast with voiced allophones for the voiceless-unaspirated stops, but because of the voicing rule, the voiceless-unaspirated segments almost never surface (except in clusters). Performance affects pronunciation, so that a pause for any reason right before a simple stop - for phrasing, coughing, you name it - will allow a voiceless segment to surface. This is why you see Asb texts recorded by people like Deloria and Lowie waffling between voiced and voiceless stops. Deloria's "Notes on the Assiniboine" is peppered with cross-outs where she has typed one and then on second thought gone back and hand-written the other. Linda From jfu at centrum.cz Tue Nov 16 08:34:26 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:34:26 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100577845.41997c35d7ca9@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Linda > benefactive. 'Make for > oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: ic^?i'c^agha, which > does *not* mean > 'make oneself' > This is interesting. In Lakhota ic?i'chag^a can mean both "to make oneself (into)" and "to make for oneself". According to Deloria the difference is indicated by stress: he'cha ic?i'chag^a ? "he made for himself that kind of thing" he'cha-ic?ichag^a ? "he made himself to be of that kind" (Boas-Deloria, Dakota Grammar pp. 139) I am not sure I have ever been able to catch that subtle stress difference in a conversation with speakers, but I am sure that I have understood from context that heard speakers use ic?i'chag^a in both meanings. Similarly oi'c?ile - 'to seek something for oneself' and 'to seek/search oneself (as in pockets etc.)' Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: we'cag^a ? I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) we'chag^a ? I make my own (from ki'chag^a) So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? Jan Jan Ullrich www.inext.cz/siouan --- Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:22:48 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:22:48 -0600 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: > For example, une 'to seek' yields ukkine with the reading 'to seek > something for oneself' as opposed to 'to seek oneself' (with a strictly > reflexive reading), What is 'to seek oneself' in Omaha, then? > I guess another difference is that the reading is 'for oneself' and not > 'for someone (else)'. For the latter purpose the forms are the simple > datives (by memory) uine or giaghe (eppaghe, dhes^kaghe, giagha=i, > iN(g?)agha=i) or gidhize (ebdhize, dhe(s^)nize, gidhiza=i, iNdhiza=i). > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > OP. Kansa has the benefactive in /gu"/ in contrast to dative/possessive /gi/. Is there something I'm missing here, or is the 'reflexive possessive' and the 'reflexive benefactive' the same? Reflexive possessive (suus) was my first guess at Catherine's form. Are we just talking about a translation difference? And I also wonder if we have plumbed the full set of possible causative forms with the various KI's. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:45:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:45:00 -0600 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives Message-ID: > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' I guess I'm still having trouble contrasting the two possibilities. In Dakotan, would 'to put away/save ones own' be formally different? I'm still wondering if the distinction between 'to X for oneself' and 'to X ones own' is a purely English one. I'm looking for formal evidence, and we already know that the dative/benefactive and the possessive in Siouan can by and large be inflected with the same prefix -- well, at least in most of Dhegiha. So why are the reflexive versions of these two somehow different? Sorry, but I'm having trouble getting my head around this. Maybe not enough coffee this morning. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 16 15:50:08 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:50:08 -0600 Subject: Siouan stops Message-ID: I have an article on this. See: On Siouan Aspiration. In David S. Rood and Jule G?mez de Garc?a, eds., Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Siouan/Caddoan Languages Conference, Boulder: University of Colorado Department of Linguistics, (1996). Yes, Siouan languages either have or had an aspirated series of stops in addition to plain ones. See the list archives for my comment on the Biloxi dotted stops a couple of weeks ago. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > Do Siouan languages typically have both aspirated and non-aspirated stops? I'm asking because of the lenition situation in Biloxi, which Dorsey is representing with a dot under the stop. (There were a couple of emails that floated back and forth about this earlier.) I'm wondering what the situation is in other Siouan languages for comparison. > > Thanks, > Dave From are2 at buffalo.edu Tue Nov 16 16:20:48 2004 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:20:48 -0500 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <044701c4cbf3$3c55bd80$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: I'm with Bob. (But I quit caffeine in the mornings and I'm not sure I think all day now.) Example: gigthiza-a! 'Get yourself some!' 'Take some for yourself!' gigthizha-a! 'Wash yourself/your own' as in NoNbe tHe gigthizha-a! 'Wash your hands!' translated in Siouan orthog: gigdhiza-a! gigdhizha-a! NaNbe tHe gigdhizha-a! Same form, one gets a 'for yourself' reading and one gets a 'yourself' reading. I think the difference is in the translation into English, and this can be seen by the fact that in my lousy dialect you can say 'take yourself some' relatively felicitously or 'take some for yourself.' So, I'm not sure that there's really a difference in Omaha. But I'm equally not sure that I'm understanding the idea either (maybe I just need clarification). -Ardis Suus, benefactive, reflexive, a rose by any other name, I still don't get it. Quoting "R. Rankin" : > > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a > form: > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' > > I guess I'm still having trouble contrasting the two possibilities. > In Dakotan, > would 'to put away/save ones own' be formally different? I'm still > wondering if > the distinction between 'to X for oneself' and 'to X ones own' is a > purely > English one. I'm looking for formal evidence, and we already know > that the > dative/benefactive and the possessive in Siouan can by and large be > inflected > with the same prefix -- well, at least in most of Dhegiha. So why > are the > reflexive versions of these two somehow different? Sorry, but I'm > having > trouble getting my head around this. Maybe not enough coffee this > morning. > > Bob > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:09:09 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:09:09 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <042401c4cbf0$23317590$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > What is 'to seek oneself' in Omaha, then? Search me! Maybe both readings are possible, depending on context. > > This is probably a good point to recall that the morphology of the dative > > in Kaw and Osage and I think Quapaw is radically different from that in > > OP. > > Kansa has the benefactive in /gu"/ in contrast to dative/possessive /gi/. > > Is there something I'm missing here, or is the 'reflexive possessive' and the > 'reflexive benefactive' the same? Reflexive possessive (suus) was my first > guess at Catherine's form. The reflexive and suus (and dative) are entirely different in form and meaning. The reflexive simply has a self-benefactive sense with certain verbs. The reflexive (with or without a benefactive reading) has the marker kki ~ kkiK (with syncopating stems), e.g., une > ukkine 'to seek something for oneself' or dhize > kkigdhize 'to fetch something for oneself'. The suus (only one reading I'm aware of) has the marker gi ~ giK (with syncopating stems), e.g., une > ugine 'to seek one's own' or dhize > gigdhize 'to fetch one's own'. > And I also wonder if we have plumbed the full set of possible causative forms > with the various KI's. Omaha-Ponca has =...dhe 'simple causative', =...khidhe 'dative causative', =...kkidhe 'reflexive causative', =...gidhe 'suus causative'. I think that the first two tend to apply to intransitive and transitive stems, respectively, but I'm not positive it works out that simply. The reflexive and suus forms have the expected meanings. I don't know if there are any reflexive causatives with benefactive readings. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:38:23 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:38:23 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100622048.419a28e05ab14@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 are2 at buffalo.edu wrote: > I'm with Bob. (But I quit caffeine in the mornings and I'm not sure I > think all day now.) Example: > gigthiza-a! 'Get yourself some!' 'Take some for yourself!' > gigthizha-a! 'Wash yourself/your own' > as in NoNbe tHe gigthizha-a! 'Wash your hands!' > > translated in Siouan orthog: > gigdhiza-a! > gigdhizha-a! NaNbe tHe gigdhizha-a! > > Same form, one gets a 'for yourself' reading and one gets a 'yourself' > reading. But the form kkigdhize (or Ponca standard or Omaha popular kigthize) also exists, at least in Ponca. And the forms ukkine (reflexive) and ugine (suus) (in Ponca standard and Omaha popular ukine and ugine) also both exist, and the former occurs with benefactive readings. I'm puzzled that folks are puzzled by this. Mind you that doesn't mean that I feel I could necessarily predict the proper form for a given context, but it seems clear enough in when produced. I'm trying to think how to explain this differently. Morphologically for a transitive stem in Dhegiha there are four possibilities: - basic stem with no modifications, - the reflexive/reciprocal with kki(K)-, - the suus (reflexive possessive) with gi(K)-, and - the dative with gi-. The corresponding argument structures: - the basic stem is the unmarked situation (subject and direct object), - the reflexive/reciprocal identifies the subject and object to form a reflexive, or the subject and beneficiary, to form a benefactive reflexive, or it may have a reciprocal reading, - the suus indicates that the object is "possessed" by the subject (which might in some cases have a fairly benefactive interpretation, I guess), - the dative focuses the transitivity on a less direct object, which can be the "possessor" of the direct object, or a beneficiary. This may be a bit cut and dried, but I think it does for a starting analysis. Notes: The suus and dative look similar but have very different paradigms. The extra morphophoneme |K| at the end of the reflexive and suus is not a separate category marker, but a conditioned additional part of the basic marker. It occurs with syncopating verbs, and in most cases it alternates with the syncopated inflection of the underlying stem in first and second persons, e.g., akkippaghe, dhakkis^kaghe, kkikkaghe for the reflexive or gaghe 'to make'. Now if anything here is complicated, that pattern of inflection for stop stems is it. For want of any better ideas I call what goes on between the kki and the underlying stem a "secondary pseudo-inflection." The "pseudo" refers to the odd way the third person bows out of the picture in favor of *k. For most purposes the name is totally unnecessary, of course. You have to have two people who are comfortable with the morphological details of this and have some further issue to discuss before you need a name for this pattern. Half the time I can't remember how it works myself and everyone else seems to shy away in horror. Various people thinking about teaching or describing Omaha-Ponca seem to feel this should be left until the graduate studies phase of things. However, things like "Look, Mom! I made myself a sock puppet!" or "Don't get up! I'll get myself some coffee." are pretty basic conversationally. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:45:57 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:45:57 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <1100577845.41997c35d7ca9@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' This is definitely the same kind of reading, but I think that kik- here isn't a reflexive in morphological terms. It's a suus form, right? How's the simple stem inflected? I'm wondering if it's underlyingly a-(k)i-naNka? Which it could be in Omaha-Ponca, but in that case the reading would be a dative 'to put someone's on something; to put something on something for someone'. (And this stem doesn't have *-ka in OP, either.) (The datives are the ki's that contract with vowels in OP, whereas it's the suus ki's that do that in Dakotan!) > Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has > straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. The Dhegiha reflexive/reciprocal is kki- (written just ki- in the popular OP orthographies), while the suus is gi- (written gi- ditto). That Dakotan ic^?i- is unique to Dakotan. I think there's a Dakota reciprocal in khi- (or is it ikhi-?) that is cognate with the Dhegiha reflexive. > kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. > ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. > To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for > the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: > ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' Does kuNza have anything similar? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 18:24:42 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:24:42 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > In Lakhota ic?i'chag^a can mean both "to make oneself (into)" and "to > make for oneself". ... These examples were particularly interesting, because they refer to reflexives in form, and in each case there is a benefactive and a non-benefactive reading. It makes me wonder if with some work I could discover similar alternate readings for the Omaha-Ponca cases. > Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: > > I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in > ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with > kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). > > Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they > aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: > > we'cag^a ? I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) > we'chag^a ? I make my own (from ki'chag^a) > > So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help > differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? My explanation for the Dakotan k > c^h where c^ only is expected is that these forms all involve allomorphs of the preceding prefix with a -k extension (as in the OP examples being discussed), so the allomorph of ic^?i- here is ic^?ik-. Dakotan aspirates reflect in large measure Proto-Mississippi Valley preaspirates, e.g., kheya 'turtle' corresponds to OP kke 'turtle', both from something like *hke-, and these preaspirates seem to be what arrises in PMV from unretained sequences stops, to judge from OP inflectional forms like ppaghe 'I make' < *p-kaghe or kkaN=bdha 'I want' < *p-kaN=p-ra, or kkikkaghe 'to make for oneself' < *hkik-kaghe, etc. So, Dakotan forms like kic^hagha (underlying *kikhagha) are presumably reflexes of *kik-kagha, and simularly with ic^?ic^hagha < *ik?ik-kagha. Naturally, a certain amount of this might actually result from analogical treatment of the prefix-stem boundary in paradigms perceived as similar, rather than from large sets of prefixes having an historical -k extension. I've looked at the question of the origin of the -k extensions extensively. Initially I suspected that they were fossilized remnants of a original ki- that had been syncopated, rendering it less salient, and then supplemented - made more salient - by an extra full ki- (or whatever) in front of it. Currently I suspect somethung rather different. I think that the reflexive morpheme *hkik- is historically an incorporated "be with" coverb *hkik-. Fairly solid traces of it as a separate and as a dependent verb are described in Boas & Deloria. The current surface forms in Dakotan are khi ~ khic^(a), of course. The development of sense is something like "with" > "both"/"in the middle" > "reciprocal" > "reflexive". From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 16 17:59:14 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:59:14 -0700 Subject: Siouan stops In-Reply-To: <1100579510.419982b67afad@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > Dakotan languages do, but in Assiniboine there is a broadly applied rule > that voices simple stops intervocalically across both syllable and word > boundaries so that the simple stops (and the affricate) surface as > voiced at least 90% of the time. Bob's answered this in general terms and referred David to the archives for the recent discussion of underdotting in Biloxi. Underdotting (or overdotting or under-x-ing or inverting of the letter) is a common scheme in earlier orthographies for explicitly marking "unaspirated stops," in which case the aspirated stops are left unmarked. Sometimes a given source will do a little of both, leaving a residuum of ambiguous cases in the middle, though usually most of these are one or the other depending on the language. In Dhegiha - ignoring ejectives - there is a three-way contrast k : kk : kH, for example. Omaha-Ponca consistently voices the simple stops, yielding g : kk : kH which in standard Siouanist usage is written g : kk : kh, while the popular orthographies both opt for g : k : kH. (H for raised h.) Kaw goes pretty much the OP route, but kH is kX (velarized aspiration). Osage doesn't voice and the surface forms are more like k : hk : kX, with the added fillip that kX is is palatalized to kS^ before front vowels. It's been a while and I'm not sure how it is in Quapaw. I think it has some voicing, but maybe less than OP or Kaw. Maybe it has the intervocalic voicing that Linda described for Assiniboine. I think t and p in initial position are usually *R and *W, but I would have to check. I suspect IO is a lot like Assiniboine, as it too is apparently aspirated vs. unaspirated usually written as voicless vs. voiced, but with a fair number of the voiceless graphs indicating unaspirated stops that one would expect to be voiced. Winnebago has managed to switch completely to voiceless vs. voiced, though with some surprising realignments. The voiced "stops" are w j^ and g, and represent the original syllable initial unaspirated stops. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Nov 16 20:10:00 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:10:00 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For what it's worth, the situation in Lakota is very confued/confusing, and seems to vary from verb to verb and sometimes from speaker to speaker. Many verbs use the same form for both "I did it to myself" and "I did it to my own/for myself" (those two readings are usually both possible), but occasionally one can distinguish, though not the same way every time. I gave up looking for any patterns in this area a long time ago, and I don't think I have a list of which verbs do what anywhere. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > In Assiniboine I have one clear context-free example of such a form: > > > > kiknaN'ka 'to put away/save for oneself' from e'knaNka 'put' > > This is definitely the same kind of reading, but I think that kik- here > isn't a reflexive in morphological terms. It's a suus form, right? > How's the simple stem inflected? I'm wondering if it's underlyingly > a-(k)i-naNka? Which it could be in Omaha-Ponca, but in that case the > reading would be a dative 'to put someone's on something; to put something > on something for someone'. (And this stem doesn't have *-ka in OP, > either.) (The datives are the ki's that contract with vowels in OP, > whereas it's the suus ki's that do that in Dakotan!) > > > Your other example, 'to seek', is one'; the ki- form is oki'ne, but it has > > straight suus meaning: 'to look for one's own'. > > The Dhegiha reflexive/reciprocal is kki- (written just ki- in the popular > OP orthographies), while the suus is gi- (written gi- ditto). That > Dakotan ic^?i- is unique to Dakotan. I think there's a Dakota reciprocal > in khi- (or is it ikhi-?) that is cognate with the Dhegiha reflexive. > > > kag^a 'make' behaves exceptionally with regard to the KI morphemes. > > ki'c^ag^a alternates with ki'c^ic^ag^a, both meaning 'make for someone'. > > To my knowledge, ka'g^a is the only verb that has alternate forms for > > the benefactive. 'Make for oneself' is, as in your example, reflexive: > > ic^?i'c^agha, which does *not* mean 'make oneself' > > Does kuNza have anything similar? > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Nov 16 20:23:54 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:23:54 -0700 Subject: kicaga vs. kichaga In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At the risk of blowing my own horn, let me again refer you to my little paper in the IJAL issue dedicated to Eric Hamp (1985:4, p. 561-2). The "ch" is not from *k at all, but from *y (as are many other Dakotan aspirated c's). Although I have never pinned down the environments completely, there are many places where a Lak /k/ simply deleted at some earlier stage of the language, especially after /i/. The dative of kaga is an example: *ki-kaga becomes *ki-aga, develops an epenthetic */y/, and that */y/ becomes /ch/ by regular sound change. Perhaps another example of this k-deletion is the suus form of the ka- prefixed verbs, which is gla, maybe from *kya from *ki-ka. David David S. Rood Linguistics - Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > > Perhaps somewhat unrelated question: > > > > I have always wondered why the k in kag^a turns into aspirated ch in > > ic?i'chag^a. It remains plain in ki'cicag^a. The same thing happens with > > kuN'zA 'to decree' -> ic'ichuNzA = I decree for myself (I pledge). > > > > Deloria comments that "The possessive forms are irregular insofar as they > > aspirate the c" (ibid 102) as in: > > > > we'cag^a ? I make for him/her (from ki'cag^a) > > we'chag^a ? I make my own (from ki'chag^a) > > > > So here the difference between c and ch is used as an irregularity to help > > differentiate the meaning, I guess. But why in ic?i'chag^a? > > My explanation for the Dakotan k > c^h where c^ only is expected is that > these forms all involve allomorphs of the preceding prefix with a -k > extension (as in the OP examples being discussed), so the allomorph of > ic^?i- here is ic^?ik-. > > Dakotan aspirates reflect in large measure Proto-Mississippi Valley > preaspirates, e.g., kheya 'turtle' corresponds to OP kke 'turtle', both > from something like *hke-, and these preaspirates seem to be what arrises > in PMV from unretained sequences stops, to judge from OP inflectional > forms like ppaghe 'I make' < *p-kaghe or kkaN=bdha 'I want' < *p-kaN=p-ra, > or kkikkaghe 'to make for oneself' < *hkik-kaghe, etc. > > So, Dakotan forms like kic^hagha (underlying *kikhagha) are presumably > reflexes of *kik-kagha, and simularly with ic^?ic^hagha < *ik?ik-kagha. > Naturally, a certain amount of this might actually result from analogical > treatment of the prefix-stem boundary in paradigms perceived as similar, > rather than from large sets of prefixes having an historical -k extension. > > I've looked at the question of the origin of the -k extensions > extensively. Initially I suspected that they were fossilized remnants of > a original ki- that had been syncopated, rendering it less salient, and > then supplemented - made more salient - by an extra full ki- (or whatever) > in front of it. Currently I suspect somethung rather different. I think > that the reflexive morpheme *hkik- is historically an incorporated "be > with" coverb *hkik-. Fairly solid traces of it as a separate and as a > dependent verb are described in Boas & Deloria. The current surface forms > in Dakotan are khi ~ khic^(a), of course. The development of sense is > something like "with" > "both"/"in the middle" > "reciprocal" > > "reflexive". > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 01:29:39 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:29:39 -0800 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It took some digging around in the hundreds of pages of Lakota field data that I have, but to get back to the original post on the ambiguity of ic?i-forms between patientive reflexive ('oneself') and benefactive reflexive ('for oneself'), it is very real in Lakota. Here is a contrastive pair, again with kaGa 'make': patientive reflexive: ey?s^na wich?s^a ic??-chaGiN na uNgn?s^ wam?khas^kaN sometimes man 3RFL-make and maybe animal (about Iktomi) 'Sometimes he turns himself into a man, at other times maybe into an animal' benefactive reflexive: eh?Nni Lakh?ta ki chaNs^?N ic??-chaGa-pi old-time Lakota DEF chewing gum 3RFL-make-PL 'the old-time Lakota made chewing gum for themselves' More examples of benefactive reflexives: thalo he o-mic'i-he meat that cook-1SG.RFL-cook 'I cooked that meat for myself' aGuqapi he wa-mic'i-kse bread that cut-1SG.RFL-cut 'I cut that bread for myself' owiNz^a he mic'i-glayeqe quilt that 1SG.RFL-POSS.sew 'i sewed that quilt for myself' Interestingly, in this example, the alternative form miglayeqe can be used as well, with no change in meaning. Now this is actually a possessive reflexive (at least the translation is possessive): w??okiye ic??-la-kta pension 3RFL-ask for-FUT 'he was going to ask for his pension' What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. The other thing that comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', when the benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine with the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient ('object') forms. Such as: mn? wich?-k'u-pi water 3PL.PAT-give-PL 'they give them water' So if I have, by some incredible accident, elicited my benefactive reflexives by means of such verbs only so far, the natural explanation for the occurrence of patient-like looking benefactive reflexives would be that the verbs in question are special in that they ALWAYS mark benefactives with patient markers. But I doubt that this is the case. I'll check it out. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 02:37:11 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:37:11 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > It took some digging around in the hundreds of pages of Lakota field data that I have, but to get back to the original post on the ambiguity of ic?i-forms between patientive reflexive ('oneself') and benefactive reflexive ('for oneself'), it is very real in Lakota. > Here is a contrastive pair, ... I'm going to have to search the files to see if I can find contrasting usages of reflexive in OP. > More examples of benefactive reflexives: > ... > 'I cooked that meat for myself' > ... > 'I cut that bread for myself' > ... > 'i sewed that quilt for myself' At least one common element with benefactive reflexives is that reflexive reading doesn't make much sense, but I think really that the essential thing is that the verb continues to take (at least implicitly) its normal sort of object or patient and that the presence of the reflexive indicates that the subject and beneficiary are one. Maybe the essential characteristic of the relevant forms is that they prefer inanimate objects and don't readily omit them, but admit an optional beneficiary? While the examples from Regina and Jan are morphologically (mostly) reflexive, it appears that reflexive possessive forms sometimes have this reading, too, in Dakotan (and also in Omaha, given Ardis's example). Perhaps the conditioning factor there is the extent to which the object can be an inalienable possession? If not, a reflexive is preferred? > Interestingly, in this example, the alternative form miglayeqe can be > used as well, with no change in meaning. I think this is the reflexive possessive form, but I can't remember for Dakota! Maybe it's first dative? > Now this is actually a possessive reflexive (at least the translation is > possessive): > > w??okiye ic??-la-kta > pension 3RFL-ask for-FUT > 'he was going to ask for his pension' How about 'He was going to ask for a pension for himself.' The first approach assumes entitlement - it's his pension and now he wants it - while the second depicts it as more of a boon that can't be counted on - he'd like a stipend, but doesn't count on it. I'm not suggesting a there's a productive alternation possible, but that there might be a stereoyped attitude to the likelihood of receiving a pension. > What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically > speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. I guess I'm suggesting this for the scope: predicates that can't push an object into chomage (if I can still use that expression!), but can admit an optional benefactive reference to the subject, while the relationship of the subject to the object is alienable possession. I'd assume that any verb that allowed a reflexive possessive in Dakota would allow a second dative if the beneficiary was not reflexive, and would retain the object reference. A verb that allowed a reflexive possessive with benefactive reflexive reading would seem more likely to allow a first dative if the beneficiary was not reflexive. > In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I > have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. I'm afraid I got lost here! From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Nov 17 08:30:48 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:30:48 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed > to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. I think the igl- and ikp- forms can do that just as well as ic?i- Here is an example from my text corpus: chaN kiN iglaksapi = They cut the wood for themselves (iglaksa = refl. from kaksa) > The other thing that comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', > when the benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine with > the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient ('object') forms. Such as: k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. She has taken herself away from us. But perhaps I got lost a bit in your discussion of benefactive person markers in place of plain patients. Jan --- Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 08:38:59 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:38:59 -0700 Subject: OP Reflexive Morpheme Examples Message-ID: First, an apology to everyone to whom I may have been offensively sarcastic in my wording today. I didn't notice the sarcasm or perceive its offensiveness it until later. However, poorly chosen phrases have been surfacing from my memory all evening. It's something I need to work on. Inspired by the examples from Jan and then Regina, I thought I ought to look for cases of the same reflexive verb used non-benefactively and benefactively in OP. I did find that at least 'make' can be used that way. Recall that the reflexive prefix in OP is kki- ~ kkig-. The final -g allomorph occurs before stop-stems (like gaghe 'to make') and dh-stems. The latter are like y-stems in Dakotan. Transitive readings: a'z^i aNkki'kkaghe aNga'dhe different we make ourselves we go we go along making ourselves different jod 90:236.18 ha'hadaN kkikka'gha= ga ready make yourself IMP jod 90:519.8 sa'be=xti kkikka'ghe= xti=aN=bi=ama very black he made himself he very jod 90:88.3 hiNxpe' kkikka'gha=i fine feather he made himself he made himself into a down feather jod 90:151.8-9 Benefactive readings: maN' aNkki'kkaghe=tte arrows let us two make them for ourselves jod 90:84.16 There are lots of benefactive examples. I could see some of the "non-benefactive" cases being considered benefactive, too, where the thing "made" is a personal quality. For other verbs I don't have any oppositions so far, but I suspect they exist. Here are verbs wih one use or the other observed. Sample "regular" reflexive readings: kkigdhi's^iba=bi=ama it opened itself jod 90:62.10 a'gaxdhe kkigdhisaNdha=bi=ama with the wind he turned himself around he changed courses walking into the wind jod 90:71.13-14 kkimu'gdhaN agdha'=bi=ama stealing himself off he went homeward jod 90:101.3-4 Reciprocal readings: tti'gaghe z^u'=kkigdhe= hnaN=bi=ama playing (house) they were with each other constantly jod 90:148.16 akki'wa kkigdhaN'= hnaN=bi=ama both they reviled each other invariably jod 90:148.17 kkittaN'be=xti gaN naNz^iN'=bi=ama looking hard at each other so they stood jod 90:277.4 Note that there are lots of reciprocal verbs with kkikki, but I think these occur because many verbs with a somewhat reciprocal base sense have one kki as part of the stem and then can add another kki to emphasize that. For example, a...kkippa 'to meet someone', but a...kkikkippa 'to meet each other'. Benefactive readings: ma's^aN ua'kkine feathers I hunt (them) for myself jod 90:25.1 we'dadhe i'kkikkuha=bi= egaN to give birth he feared it for himself having jod 90:39.10 haN'bdhiNge aNkki'?a=i beans we hoed (them) for ourselves jod 90:58.7-8 waz^e=akkiz^i I roasted the collection for myself jod 90:63.4 ttanu'kka he'be akki'ppad=egaN= tte= ha fresh meat piece I cut up for myself will DECL jod 90:72.16 tti' a'kkie=ama=tta we'kkigdhixe adhe idha=bi=ama lodges thick the to to seek assistance for herself to go to she spoke of jod 90:110.7-8 ===== I didn't happen on any suus forms with reflexive benefacive readings, but (a) I didn't go very far into Dorsey on each particular pass, and (b) Dorsey's texts tend to use very stylized glosses, and he may never gloss a suus form reflexively through on that basis, even where such a gloss would be the most natural one. I'm satisfied that such examples must exist. ===== I wonder if the term to characterize verbs that support benefactive reflexive clauses is something like factive or factitive? I'm looking for the phrase that means 'verbs that express a process of producing something (for someone, perhaps oneself)'. Maybe also 'getting something'. It looks like factitive might actually be the opposite of what I want - it seems to mean somethign like 'making something have a certain quality', which is where 'make' is properly reflexive. John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 08:53:55 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:53:55 -0700 Subject: Dative, etc., Causatives in OP Message-ID: At Bob's request, here are cases of different dative, etc., variants of causatives. I was able to use variations on t?e=dhe 'to kill' ('to make die') for all the main set of examples. Basic causative =dhE (like Dakotan =yA) t?e'=dha=bi= ama he killed him (they say) jod 90:283.12 Dative causative =khidhE (like Dakotan =khiyA) ni'kkagahi u'z^u t?e'=dhikhidha=i= hnaNkha=s^e chief principal they killed him for you you the sitting ye whose principal chief was killed jod 90:17.1 Reflexive Causative =kkidhe t?e'=akkidhe= xti=maN I have killed myself I altogether I have totally done myself in jod 90:262.11 Reflexive Possessive Causative =gidhe iz^iN'ge t?e'=gidha=i his son he killed his own jod 90:611.13 I couldn't pass up these examples. A double causative: t?e'=kkidhe= wadhe die they make themselves he made them he made them kill themselves jod 90:141.11 A reflexive embedded under a causative: kki?aN'=khidhe= s^te=aN=bi he made her paint herself even (I think this might refer to painting her hair parting.) jod 90:80.5 From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 17 14:40:45 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:40:45 -0600 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend Message-ID: I received this question and thought I'd pass it along in case someone has better insight than I do. The second name does sort of "look" Algonquian, but that's about all I can say. Bob ----- Original Message ----- > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > meaningless. > Thanks, > John From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 17 15:14:15 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:14:15 -0600 Subject: KI-form transcriptions. Message-ID: Looking back at the posts, I think part of my perplexity stems from the fact that a combination of the scientific and the Fletcher & La Flesche transcription systems is clouding the issues. It shouldn't, since I've been accustomed to seeing both for many years, but that doesn't necessarily help before the coffee kicks in. I understand why people like to use the official spellings, but they are best reserved for dictionaries (i.e., individual words) and syntax issues. They are lacking in the morphophonemic department and I'd suggest that we stay with the scientific "net Siouan" transcription for issues of phonology and morphology (and their interface), just as we would for English and other languages. If I get a query about a morpheme with the shape kki-, I have no problem, but if I get a query about a morpheme spelt ki-, I don't readily know what it represents. It could be Riggs' /khi/, La Flesche's /kki/, Dorsey's /ki/ in Quapaw or Osage, Rood and Taylor's /ki/ or something entirely different. In other words it could be representing [kh, k, hk, kk, g]. Or just include both, but clearly labeled. Bob > But the form kkigdhize (or Ponca standard or Omaha popular kigthize) also > exists, at least in Ponca. And the forms ukkine (reflexive) and ugine > (suus) (in Ponca standard and Omaha popular ukine and ugine) also both > exist, and the former occurs with benefactive readings. > I'm puzzled that folks are puzzled by this. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 17:22:43 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:22:43 -0700 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend In-Reply-To: <058d01c4ccb3$6d0939f0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > > meaningless. The problem in Siouan contexts is that there are relatively few cases where /mu/ or /mo/ makes sense (OP and Wi, of course). Biloxi - which is in the vicinity - loses initial labials, right? I assume the spelling represents something between mules^aaskek and mulzaaskek. English looks like a better bet than a Siouan language. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Nov 17 18:11:57 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:11:57 +0100 Subject: benefactory/possessive etc. reflexives Message-ID: In one of my sources, I came up with a reflexive in Dakotan (which I've altered a bit in order to make the meaning smth less obvious) wondering whether it is possible for you to tell me: 1) are there different ways of possible translations (i.e. is the sentence grammatically ambiguous or not), 2) is it only up to context to decide? It is: matxo sapa ?ic?i'ye Thanks Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Wed Nov 17 18:48:34 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:34 +0100 Subject: Mooleshawskek Message-ID: For what it's worth, here's maybe a trace for further research: "Wolf?s Friend, or Mooleshawskek, appears to have been of a crafty disposition and fond of display, though a chief of great influence. From the appearance of his Indian name, the writer leans to the view that this chief was not a native Chickasaw, but an adopted member of the tribe. Considerable light is thrown upon his character by Captain Guion?s letter to the Secretary of war, dated ?Fort Adams, Chickasaw Bluff, October 22, 1797,? as given in Claiborne?s Mississippi, 185-6." ... though the writer - apparently familiar with the source cited - doesn't know for sure, either. :( http://www.natchezbelle.org/ahgp-ms/chiefs/index.htm#menu Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 19:56:28 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:56:28 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jan, both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the reflexive, too. David > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. > > > > > > But perhaps I got lost a bit in your discussion of benefactive person > markers in place of plain patients. > > > > > > Jan > --- > Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > David S. Rood From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 17 20:02:47 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:02:47 -0500 Subject: Fw: Wolf's Friend In-Reply-To: <058d01c4ccb3$6d0939f0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Yes, John sent this to me and I thought, well, "it *could* be Algonquian, but it rang no bell, then I sent it to Dave Costa and it rangeth no bells with him either. If this is Algonquian, it's conceivably a garbling. Michael On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > I received this question and thought I'd pass it along in case someone has > better insight than I do. The second name does sort of "look" Algonquian, but > that's about all I can say. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > There was a late 18th-c. Chickasaw headman who was called Wolf's Friend by > > the whites and he had two native names. One is Chickasaw --Ugulayacabe > > (Killer of Many Nations)--, but the other isn't: Mooleshawskek. This last > > doesn't seem to be Siouan, but on the off chance, do you see anything > > there? I've also asked a colleague here about the possibility of an > > Algonquian name. The sounds look OK for Algonquian but they are apparently > > meaningless. > > > Thanks, > > > John > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 17 20:52:33 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:52:33 -0700 Subject: *y-Stem Verbs (RE: Benefactive Reflexives) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected > extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the > reflexive, too. > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. (I was also wondering about the ii here.) Interesting! This looks like it should be a reflex of a "syncopating" or "second conjugation" *y-stem *iyu, though I would have expected ic^hu for the basic stem. The kc^ cluster occurs in Dakota for stop + *y clusters, e.g., Da (wi)kc^emna 'ten' vs. OP gdheb(dh)aN 'ten' < PS *kyepraN. The *y-stems are pretty scarce and the main one the CSD project is aware of is *DEM=yE 'to think'. This has Da first persons like epc^e vs. OP ebdh(egaN) 'I (kinda) think'. Actually, Da only has first persons for the 'think' verb, as I understand it. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 21:21:39 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:21:39 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117012940.84539.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on exactly that kind of imposition. Lakhota is not terribly unusual among the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, unregistered in the verb. If you want to make the Lakhota and English structurally alike, try glossing the verb as 'to gift' rather than 'to give'; I could say 'she gifted me with it' instead of 'she gave it to me'. The reason there is no benefactive morphology with this verb is that it doesn't take a syntactically benefactive argument. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > > What I'm wondering now is what the scope of the phenomenon is, lexically > speaking, i.e. how many verbs behave like this. In fact, it now occurs > to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I have managed to elicit > so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. The other thing that > comes to my mind is that some verbs, among these k'u 'give', when the > benefactive (no matter if reflexive or not) is expressed, never combine > with the benefactive person markers, but rather, with plain patient > ('object') forms. Such as: > > mn? wich?-k'u-pi > > water 3PL.PAT-give-PL > > 'they give them water' > > So if I have, by some incredible accident, elicited my benefactive > reflexives by means of such verbs only so far, the natural explanation > for the occurrence of patient-like looking benefactive reflexives would > be that the verbs in question are special in that they ALWAYS mark > benefactives with patient markers. But I doubt that this is the case. > I'll check it out. > > Regina > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Nov 17 21:37:28 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:37:28 +0100 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, thanks for correcting me. Indeed ii'c?ikcupi is a form of icu (not k?u), as even my English translations of the sample sentences show :). I was being sloppy. I meant to say that I do find occurences of ic?i'c?u, the reflexive and reflexive benefactive of k?u': Reflexive: Tunwe'ya ya'pi kta ic?i'c?upi. = They voluntered to go as scouts (lit.: they gave themselves ...) Reflexive benefactive: Woimagaga ota ic?i'c?u. = He gave himself a lot of ammusement. Jan David Rood wrote: > Jan, > > both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an unexpected > extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the > reflexive, too. > > David > > > > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > > > She has taken herself away from us. > > > > --- Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 21:29:24 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:29:24 -0800 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [John] >I think really that the essential >thing is that the verb continues to take (at least implicitly) its >normal >sort of object or patient and that the presence of the reflexive >indicates >that the subject and beneficiary are one. >> In fact, it now occurs to me that ic'i-forms are the ONLY forms that I >> have managed to elicit so far when benefactive reflexives were at issue. >I'm afraid I got lost here! What I meant (I should have made that more explicit) is that by the building-block logic of person marking in Lakota, one might expect that benefactive reflexives are coded by means of reflexive ic'i-forms plus the benefactive/possessive marker ki-, which would yield something like ic'ici- for third person singular benefactive reflexive. Today's Lakota session has revealed that such forms do, however, not exist. At least my speaker and me haven't been able to produce such an example. [Jan/David] > > k'u is also used with ic?i in both reflexive and reflexive benefactive: > > Phezhi etaN' ii'c?ikcupi na owiN'shthuNpi. > > They took some grass for themselves and spread it to sleep on > > > > Unki'yepi etaN'haN xeya'b ii'c?ikcu. > > She has taken herself away from us. >both of these examples are of icu, not k'u; that verb takes an >unexpected >extra -k- before the -c- in the suus forms and (apparently) with the >reflexive, too. Right. But the examples are very nice and illustrate the patientive/benefactive ambiguity of ic'i-forms. Here is another one with icu 'take': peanuts etaN i-mic'i-kcu peanuts some take-1SG.RFL-take 'I got myself some peanuts' Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 17 22:16:14 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:16:14 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [David] > Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does > not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It > has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category > descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of > "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on > exactly that kind of imposition. My surprise in this case does not stem from the Indo-European category glasses that I might be wearing, but rather from what Lakota itself does in terms of categorization. The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with certainty right now. Another possible exception might be wiyopheya 'sell' though. So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of analogy with the rest of the system that's the real eye-catcher. > Lakhota is not terribly unusual among > the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as > the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, > unregistered in the verb. I don't think that that's correct. I found the following example in my text collection: wich?-ma-k?u-pi 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-IMPERSONAL 'I was given to them (i.e. to the family in marriage)' Both patient and benefactive appear as person affixes here. Wicha- is the benefactive, ma- is the patient. k'u 'give' is simply unusual in that it takes double patient markers, even though one of the patient markers must be interpreted as a benefactive. Or maybe, as David says, if the recipient is really conceptualized as another direct object, we have two direct objects here. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Nov 17 22:38:19 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:38:19 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117221614.29781.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regina, thanks for the clarification; you're right about "benefactive" being a very well developed category in Lak; my annoyance with the usual analogy to IE datives stems from much more than the Lakhota examples. I must admit to astonishment at your wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'I was given to them'. I have never been able to elicit three overtly marked arguments on that verb in all my years of trying. I don't know what to make of it. Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? The only form I ever got for that was mak'upi, with no registration of the 'they', or perhaps hena cha mak'upi (but that's ambiguous as to whether the hena is subject or not). How does iyuNga 'to ask someone something' work? I don't think the 'something' can ever be animate, so it would never be marked on the verb anyway. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > [David] > > Regina has expressed surprise (see below) that the verb k'u 'give' does > > > not take benefactive morphology to mark the benefactive argument. It > > > has long been a pet peeve of mine that we impose our Indo-European category > > > descriptions on other languages, and the whole elaborate discussion of > > > "secondary object languages" in the theoretical literature rests on > > > exactly that kind of imposition. > > My surprise in this case does not stem from the Indo-European category glasses that I might be wearing, but rather from what Lakota itself does in terms of categorization. The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with certainty right now. Another possible exception might be wiyopheya 'sell' though. So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of analogy with the rest of the system that's the real > eye-catcher. > > > Lakhota is not terribly unusual among > > > the world's languages in treating the recipient of the 'give' action as > > > the real direct object, and the other participant as simply an adjunct, > > > unregistered in the verb. > > I don't think that that's correct. I found the following example in my text collection: > > wich?-ma-k?u-pi > > 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-IMPERSONAL > > 'I was given to them (i.e. to the family in marriage)' > > Both patient and benefactive appear as person affixes here. Wicha- is the benefactive, ma- is the patient. k'u 'give' is simply unusual in that it takes double patient markers, even though one of the patient markers must be interpreted as a benefactive. Or maybe, as David says, if the recipient is really conceptualized as another direct object, we have two direct objects here. > > Regina > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 00:05:17 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:05:17 -0700 Subject: Benefactive Reflexives In-Reply-To: <20041117212924.31084.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > What I meant (I should have made that more explicit) is that by the > building-block logic of person marking in Lakota, one might expect that > benefactive reflexives are coded by means of reflexive ic'i-forms plus > the benefactive/possessive marker ki-, which would yield something like > ic'ici- for third person singular benefactive reflexive. Today's Lakota > session has revealed that such forms do, however, not exist. At least my > speaker and me haven't been able to produce such an example. Thanks. Now I understand. I hadn't thought of this. I know that it is possible to have multiple locatives, and I think there are some cases of multiple instrumentals - though it's not common - but are there any cases of multiple "things that begin (or almost begin) with k"? The OP example of a "reflexive verb with a causative" that I reported last night ("he caused her to paint herself") qualifies in the strict sense, so I'd better specify simple predicates and not complex ones. I'm missing the obvious. There's the Dakota second dative kic^i-form. In some sense the two elements there behave as a single chunk, but this is definitely more like what I was wondering about. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 00:53:25 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:25 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041117221614.29781.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > The fact that Lakota has separate benefactive/possessive person markers > can be taken to indicate that the language has a distinct notion of > benefactivity. And any (?) other Lakota verb that expresses > benefactivity does so by means of those benefactive/possessive > paradigms, k'u 'give' being the only exception that I'm aware of with > certainty right now. > So what puzzled me is that if Lakota conceptualizes ditransitive verbs > the same way as English in all but one or maybe a few cases, in using > patient markers for (English) patients and benefactive markers for > (English) benefactives, why not k'u 'give -- the most prototypical of > ditransitive verbs, semantically speaking -- as well? It's the lack of > analogy with the rest of the system that's the real eye-catcher. But does Lakota use patient markers for patients and benefactive markers for benefactives? Apart from the unusual "gave me to them" case cited, which I assume will be discussed separately, I have the impression that there is only one set of patient agreement markers present typically. If there is a benefactive prefix present, the markers signify the beneficiary; if not, the patient. The morphology of the benefactive causes the patient morphemes to assume a different shape - miN- vs. maN-, etc., when they occur with it, but the potential for both kinds of marking to occur is absent or minimal. All the exceptions I've ever heard of involved the third person plural. It's certainly typical of Dhegiha to mark one kind of object or the other, not both, and I had always thought the same was true also of Dakota, barring a few marginal examples in either language. You can definitely have a nominal reference to a patient in a transitive clause with a benefactive verb, however. I take the noun to be essentially a "chomeur." In some languages this would entail some kind of adposition or case marking, but this is not typical in Siouan langauges. As far as I know you can never mention a dative in this way - as a noun or postpositional phrase only, with no marking in the verb. Thus, in the strict sense, you can say "I gave him the bread." or "I gave bread." but not "I gave bread to him." This is the pattern I associate with what I've seen called primary vs. secondary object marking, albeit in Siouan languages there is a ranking constraint that requires a verb to make a primary object of any dative (or benefactive) argument. I don't think that constraint is always present with primary vs. secondary schemes. Rephrasing this, the pattern I thought I was seeing in Siouan languages is that their verbs code one object. Non-dative verbs - "simple transitives" - code a patient and no uncoded dative object nominal can be mentioned in the clause. Some kinds of more remote objects can be introduced with locative prefixes. Dative verbs code a dative and an uncoded patient object nominal can be included in the clause. Most dative verbs involve some specific marker of dativeness, which is usually manifested to some degree in a modification of the form of explicit patient pronominals. The unique thing about k?u and any similar verbs in this context is that they behave as dative verbs without benefit of any special marking - they are inherently dative. A Siouan parallel for this (for OP) would be dhiNge' 'to lack' which inherently agrees with the experiencer of the lack, whereas git?e' 'one's kin to die' requires the help of the dative gi-prefix to do this. hiNbe' aNdhiN'ge shoes I don't have iz^iN'ge iNt?e' son I had die (I wonder if wiz^iN'ge is required here?) There is one interesting thing about k?u as an "unmarked dative verb." It does start with k. Maybe the verb was *k-?u in Proto-Siouan. There's apparently no reason to see it in these terms in any of the modern languages. I don't know of any occurrences of hypothetical underlying *?u, either. From lcumberl at indiana.edu Thu Nov 18 02:12:02 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:12:02 -0500 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? I have this in my data for Asb: pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' Linda From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Nov 18 02:17:18 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:17:18 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [David] > I must admit to astonishment at your wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'I was given > to them'. I have never been able to elicit three overtly marked > arguments on that verb in all my years of trying. I haven't even elicited that one, it's from coherent discourse, i.e. from one of Neva's texts. But in my experience, things that occur in connected discourse are not always considered grammatical in elicitation. Here is another k'u-form from the texts, also with three overt arguments, one of them being wa- 'non-specific patient'. But the analysis of this example is complicated by the presence of locative o-, to the effect that the verb form might contain a locative phrase rather than a benefactive one, depending on the interpretation. Buechel has ok'u 'to give to, especially food', but that doesn?t tell us either if the Lakota speaker conceptualizes the o-participant as a locative or as a benefactive. w-?-?uN-ni-c?u-pi-kte NSP.PAT-LOC-1PL.AG-2SG.PAT-give-PL-FUT 'we'll give you food/things' > I don't know what to make of it [wicha-ma-k'u-pi]. Could it also mean > 'they were given to me'? Theoretically yes, but I have no data on whether this translation is possible or not. It might be elicitable if we put something animate such as 'horses' in the patient slot. The interpretation of wicha-ma-k'u-pi as it is used in the text is unambiguous, at least to me. I'm pasting the example again below, this time adding a little more context: ho h?haN Lakh?ta ?tkiya hiNgn?thuN-ma-khiya-pi cha well then Lakota according to marry-1SG.PAT-CAU-PL QL wich?-ma-k?u-pi. cha wich?s^a waN hiNgn?-wa-ye 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-PL. so man LK marry-1SG.AG-marry ki slol-w?-ye-s^ni DEF know-1SG.AG-know-NEG 'Then they made me marry the Lakota way, so they gave me to them (Neva said that wicha- refers to her husband-to-be's family). I didn't know the man I married.' > How does iyuNga 'to ask someone something' work? I don't think > the 'something' can ever be animate, so it would never be marked on > the verb anyway. An animate patient won't work here for semantic reasons, but I think I have seen some examples with wa- 'non-specific patient' appearing in this slot. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at centrum.cz Thu Nov 18 13:28:05 2004 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan Ullrich) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:05 +0100 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <1100743922.419c04f242034@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much interest on the list. I encountered it in the following sentence: Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. >>From those he gave me I shall lose none. However, the previous sentence of the same text says: Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. All of those that my father gave me will come to me. In both instances the object is animate according to the context. At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the sentence recorded by Regina: Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical translation: nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and "they gave ME to you" Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be employed? Jan > lcumberl at indiana.edu > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > Linda > > > --- > P??choz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > --- Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Nov 18 17:19:28 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:19:28 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041118021718.67413.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > Here is another k'u-form from the texts, also with three overt > arguments, one of them being wa- 'non-specific patient'. But the > analysis of this example is complicated by the presence of locative o-, > to the effect that the verb form might contain a locative phrase rather > than a benefactive one, depending on the interpretation. Buechel has > ok'u 'to give to, especially food', but that doesn?t tell us either if > the Lakota speaker conceptualizes the o-participant as a locative or as > a benefactive. I believe Carolyn Quintero had a series of a-locative forms in Osage with benefactive readings, but I don't recall the details. From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Nov 18 18:44:44 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:44:44 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > > I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I > posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much > interest on the list. > > I encountered it in the following sentence: > > Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. > >From those he gave me I shall lose none. > > However, the previous sentence of the same text says: > > Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. > All of those that my father gave me will come to me. > > In both instances the object is animate according to the context. > > At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of > error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's > Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of > translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for > 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one > occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. > > Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with > wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when > eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). > > I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the > sentence recorded by Regina: > > Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. > = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. > > This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. > Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. > > > There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical > translation: > > nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. > > > So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and > "they gave ME to you" > Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of > these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be > employed? > > > Jan > > > > > > lcumberl at indiana.edu > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > > > Linda > > > > > > --- > > P??choz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > > > --- > Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Nov 18 18:53:47 2004 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:53:47 -0700 Subject: error in previous message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I meant wicha-ma-la-pi to mean (possibly) 'they asked THEM for me', not *'they asked me for you.' Sorry. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons > is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? > What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to > you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to > you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works > like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think > this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to > have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb > without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > > > > > > > I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I > > posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much > > interest on the list. > > > > I encountered it in the following sentence: > > > > Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. > > >From those he gave me I shall lose none. > > > > However, the previous sentence of the same text says: > > > > Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. > > All of those that my father gave me will come to me. > > > > In both instances the object is animate according to the context. > > > > At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of > > error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's > > Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of > > translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for > > 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one > > occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. > > > > Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with > > wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when > > eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u). > > > > I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the > > sentence recorded by Regina: > > > > Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. > > = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. > > > > This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. > > Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. > > > > > > There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical > > translation: > > > > nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. > > > > > > So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and > > "they gave ME to you" > > Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of > > these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be > > employed? > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > lcumberl at indiana.edu > > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM > > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' > > > > > > > > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? > > > > > > > > > I have this in my data for Asb: > > > > > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > > --- > > > P??choz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > > > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > > > > > --- > > Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. > > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 > > > > > From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Thu Nov 18 18:59:58 2004 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:59:58 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think one thing we want to keep clear is the fact that the benefactive prefix is a benefactive applicative, a derivational prefix that alters the argument structure of the verb stem rather than representing an argument directly. 'Give' typically doesn't appear with benefactive applicatives, because it already has a beneficiary in its argument structure. Applicatives add one. In some languages, applicatives are added only to intransitive verbs, making them transitive. In others, applicatives can be added to either intransitives or transitives. In these cases, there are again two ways to go. The original object/absolutive/patient of the base transitive can either stick around as an argument, or be displaced, ending up as some kind of oblique or adjunct or 'ch?meur'. The interesting thing is that in a lot of situations, like here, it can be hard to tell what happened, because inanimates are not represented on the verb by pronominal affixes anyway. So Regina's example is especially nifty! Marianne --On Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:44 AM -0700 ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons > is an important one here. Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible? > What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to > you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to > you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works > like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think > this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to > have', doesn't it? If so, then we have a possible two-object verb > without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.) > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote: > >> >> >> I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I >> posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much >> interest on the list. >> >> I encountered it in the following sentence: >> >> Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni. >> > From those he gave me I shall lose none. >> >> However, the previous sentence of the same text says: >> >> Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte. >> All of those that my father gave me will come to me. >> >> In both instances the object is animate according to the context. >> >> At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some >> sort of error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English >> (Buechel's Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the >> results of translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use >> of mak?u for 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could >> only one occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning. >> >> Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with >> wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when >> eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa >> mak?u). >> >> I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in >> the sentence recorded by Regina: >> >> Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo. >> = Don't give me to the will of my enemies. >> >> This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible. >> Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'. >> >> >> There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's >> biblical translation: >> >> nima'kahipi = they brought you to me. >> >> >> So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and >> "they gave ME to you" >> Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of >> these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be >> employed? >> >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> > lcumberl at indiana.edu >> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM >> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >> > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give' >> > >> > >> > Quoting ROOD DAVID S : >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'? >> > >> > >> > I have this in my data for Asb: >> > >> > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens' >> > >> > Linda >> > >> > >> > --- >> > P??choz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. >> > Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >> > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 >> > >> --- >> Odchoz? zpr?va neobsahuje viry. >> Zkontrolov?no antivirov?m syst?mem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >> Verze: 6.0.795 / Virov? b?ze: 539 - datum vyd?n?: 12.11.2004 >> >> > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Nov 18 19:28:48 2004 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:28:48 +0000 Subject: Lakota vocabulary question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/11/04 11:01 pm, "ROOD DAVID S" wrote: > > I have an inquiry about a word which was reported to me as "walansila" > meaning "compassionate". I can't find it, but Bruce's dictionary has > "wa'uNs^ila" for English 'compassionate'. Can anyone clarify the possible > differences in the two words, or verify that one is correct and the other > not, and offer any examples of context in which it might be used? > > Thanks. > > David > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > Walansila looks like a mistake to me. I can't think of anything near it. It could be a misquote for wauns^ila as you suggest Bruce From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Nov 18 22:23:25 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:23:25 -0800 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <52F83B5C5032C8629132279E@mithun.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: [John] > It's certainly typical of Dhegiha to mark one kind of object or the > other, not both, and I had always thought the same was true also of > Dakota, barring a few marginal examples in either language. > Rephrasing this, the pattern I thought I was seeing in Siouan > languages is that their verbs code one object. Non-dative verbs - > "simple transitives" - code a patient and no uncoded dative object > nominal can be mentioned in the clause. Some kinds of more remote > objects can be introduced with locative prefixes. Dative verbs code > a dative and an uncoded patient object nominal can be included in the > clause. Most dative verbs involve some specific marker of > dativeness, which is usually manifested to some degree in a > modification of the form of explicit patient pronominals. Today's Lakota field session was the Lakota argument structure lover's paradise (or madhouse, depending on whether one judges it by its output or by the energy input required to keep one's mental focus in the face of too many person markers showing up in too many unexpected positions). First, a note on wicha-ma-k'u-pi, which I had previously glossed as 'I was given to them' or 'they gave me to them'. This example does, in fact, not prove the possibility of double object coding in transitives as clearly as I thought. My Pine Ridge speaker confirmed its grammaticality, but spontaneously provided the translation 'I was given away (in marriage)'. And I believe that this translation fits the context in which the example occurs (cf. my previous email) better than my original translation, because the extra-linguistic referent of the benefactive wicha- is not mentioned at all in the context in which the form wicha-ma-k'u-pi occurs. Which points to the possibility that wicha-, in this case, is not a referential third person marker, but rather, a marker for impersonal, i.e. the animate counterpart of wa- 'non-specific patient'. I have numerous examples suggesting that wicha- can be used that way. I know that some people on the list might feel inclined to interpret non-referential/impersonal wicha- as a valence-reducing device, rather than as a full-fledged person marker, and on this interpretation, we lose wicha- as a second object marker in wicha-ma-k'u-pi. More importantly, in trying to elicit a Linda-style example with wicha-ma-k'u-pi, I was told that only s^uNh^pala ki hena ma-k'u-pi puppy DEF those 1SG.PAT-give-PL 'they gave me those puppies' is grammatical, not, however * s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-ma-k'u-pi puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.PAT-give-PL 'they gave me those puppies' So right now, it doesn't look like a strong case can be made for double objects with k'u, after all. I also tried *ni-ma-k'u-pi and *ma-ni-k'upi for 'I was given to you in marriage/you were given to me?', but these combinations are not acceptable. But if the wicha-slot in the original example cannot be filled by anyhting other than wicha-, chances are that this wicha- is not a real person marker here. [Marianne] > the benefactive prefix is a benefactive applicative, a derivational > prefix that alters the argument structure of the verb stem rather > than representing an argument directly. 'Give' typically doesn't > appear with benefactive applicatives, because it already has a > beneficiary in its argument structure. Yes, that would take us closer to answering the question of why k'u 'give' seems to be the only verb that codes an (Enlgish) benefactive by means of patient affixes in Lakota. A potentially related explanation (albeit one that may be taken to merely reflect my personal obsession with Zipfian frequency approaches) is that syntactic combinations that occur frequently in discourse will be structurally less complex/less marked than less frequent ones. Since expression of the beneficiary with k'u is enormously salient in discourse, i.e. extremely frequent, with k'u, the beneficiary might be expressed by a form that is structurally less complex than "normal" benefactive forms, which contain ki-. That is, the ki-"extension" is lacking with k'u. So far, so good. Returning to the question about double object affixes in Lakota, verbs of transportation -- e.g. a'u 'bring', ahi 'take to' -- turn out to be a real treasure-trove when it comes to checking on cooccurrences of patient and benefactive markers within a single verb form. At least one relevant example was in Jan's recent post already. But there's more: s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-mic-a'u puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.BEN-bring 'he brings the puppies for me' s^uNh^pala ki hena wicha-nic-a'u puppy DEF those 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-bring 'he brings the puppies for you' s^uNkakhaN ki hena wicha-mic-ahi horse DEF those 3PL.PAT-1SG.BEN-take to 'he takes the horses there for me' s^uNkakhaN ki hena wicha-nic-ahi horse DEF those 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-take to 'he takes the horses there for you' Note that in all these cases, skipping wicha- also yields acceptable examples. A phonological complication in dealing with these forms lies in the fact that apparently, the final i of the benefactive markers mici-/nici- is assimilated to the adjacent verb-initial vowel a, i.e. it disappears. So given these examples, the one-affixal-object-only hypothesis can't be defended, I guess. But in fact, this hypothesis captures a strong statistical tednency because examples like the ones above are extremely infrequent in natural discourse. One factor that is quite likely to obscure the possibility of having double object affixes is the fact that at least many third person objects remain cryptic because they are coded by zero markers -- unless we're dealing with third person animate plural wicha-. Another question worth asking is if the semantic combination benefactive + patient is the only one that produces double object affix constellations in a single verb. The answer is, no, the referents of postpositional phrases may also appear as verbal affixes together with a benefactive affix. Consider: ob wicha-nici-yiN-kte with 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-go-FUT 'he'll go with them for you' ekta wicha-nici-yiN-kte to 3PL.PAT-2SG.BEN-go-FUT 'he'll go to them for you' Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Nov 19 00:52:10 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:52:10 -0700 Subject: argument structure of k'u 'give' In-Reply-To: <20041118222325.22355.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What I've noticed is the examples Regina and Neva have assembled is that what works for a two object-inflection verb is wic^ha- for a less salient object 'them' and a "speech act participant" inflection for a more salient argument, often a benefactive, but but not in the 'give in marriage' example. I think we've observed similar things in the past in other contexts. One that I recall (for OP, anyway) is that the verb embedded under the causative can take wa-, but otherwise inflection is on the causative. Regina suggests that with k?u a wic^ha- here is essentially derivational Could this maybe be argued in the other cases, too? Is there a test for derivational status? (I could use some broad hints on this in some OP contexts! So far I only know the arguments in terms of (lack of) preductivity and (lack of) predictability of the sense of the whole from the sense of the parts and statistics, which are hard to apply easily.) Actually, I think that Regina doesn't need to concede that wic^ha- is derivational in any absolute sense in any of the cases as long as it's possible to characterize it in some way as being on the boundary between derivational and inflectional, or at least as being less inflectional than mi- and ni-, etc. The synchronic argument might be in terms of ranking, along the lines that "a less salient pronominal category can only encode a less salient object." Or maybe it's "a more salient object must be encoded and can only be encoded by a more salient pronominal category." I'm trying to think of a way to preclude ni-ma- or wic^ha-wic^ha-, but allow wic^ha-ni- and wic^ha-ma-. (And where does uN(k)- fit into this?) Linda's example and its rejection by Lakota speakers confirm what David said earlier about this differing from place to place and speaker to speaker. Assiniboine and Lakota might well be entirely different in this respect. I'm always amazed when I see actual Osage, etc. The similarities to OP only make the differences more astounding. I go along thinking "Same. Same. Same. Whoa, what was that?" From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 02:50:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:50:50 -0600 Subject: PDF embedded fonts. Message-ID: Hi Corey, Can't remember exactly what I sent or was supposed to send, but here is an improved copy of the Ablaut paper. I tried reading it on my wife's computer which lacks any Siouan fonts and it looks like they embedded OK this time. Adobe Acrobat is really pretty lame at getting these things right. It's probably great for straight English prose, but phonetic symbols make it choke. I was in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago and noticed you were giving a paper on Romanian at the provincial meeting in Banff. I used to do Romanian back in the early '70's when i was a Balkanist. What was your paper about? Best, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Corey Telfer" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:18 PM Subject: Re: PDF embedded fonts. > Hi all, > > I had a bear of a time making your PDF file come out right Bob, but > eventually I made it work. The first copy I printed out had a lot of fonts > wrong, and I only figured that out because I happened to be familiar with > the words in question. I went back to the computer and eventually made it > better, but I'm still not 100% certain that I have all the right characters > in my copy. If you could provide it as a word document and provide us with > the fonts, that might work better... > > I'm sorry to hear that your house was broken into and I hope nothing too > valuable was lost. > > Corey Telfer > University of Calgary > > > > "R. Rankin" said: > > > Yes, ideally and theoretically the necessary fonts are embedded within .pdf > > documents. However, I have found that this is unfortunately not always the > > case. Any number of times I have tried to make .pdf files of certain > documents, > > especially using the IroquoianABC font which includes a lot of overstrike > > characters, and found that the resultant .pdf file did not reproduce the > fonts > > properly. It has also often been the case that material in columns gets > shifted > > around. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Nor do I know if there is a > > difference between the outcomes using "distiller" and "pdf writer" choices. > > I'll give it my best shot though. > > > > This is going to take a few days since my home was burglarized Monday and > I'm > > having to deal with a lot of unexpected paperwork. Late next week > probably. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ablaut.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 156391 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 20 10:52:57 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:52:57 +0100 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Bob, again thanks a lot for the ablaut.pdf >Dear Colleagues, I hope this Adobe .PDF file works out. I tried it out on my wife's machine, which doesn't have the Siouan fonts installed and it looked OK. You will need Courier (New). It comes with all XP machines and most older ones also. I can't guarantee anything with Macs, but if you have a Mac and the Siouan forms in the paper look like gibberish, let me know. Enjoy. Comments welcome. Bob << In total, I now seem to have three versions: the last one (of Nov. 20) looks pretty good on my Macintosh (as far I can judge Chiwere: "-ne/-na, an element indicating definite plural" - Is the n-tilde in '-ne' okay?? This is the only character I'm hesitant about.) Thanks again, I'll reread the paper now. Alfred From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Sat Nov 20 14:59:32 2004 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:59:32 -0600 Subject: Ablaut paper Message-ID: Correct with "-n~e" but not when changed to "-na". ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Alfred W. T?ting"" To: Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 4:52 AM Subject: Ablaut paper > looks pretty good on my Macintosh (as far I can judge Chiwere: "-ne/-na, > an element indicating definite plural" - Is the n-tilde in '-ne' okay?? > This is the only character I'm hesitant about.) > Thanks again, I'll reread the paper now. > Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 15:11:23 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:11:23 -0600 Subject: PDF embedded fonts. Message-ID: This was supposed to go to Corey, not the list. Sorry to bother you guys with it. I didn't think the list took attachments though, and it seems to have gotten thru. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: PDF embedded fonts. > Hi Corey, > > Can't remember exactly what I sent or was supposed to send, but here is an > improved copy of the Ablaut paper. I tried reading it on my wife's computer > which lacks any Siouan fonts and it looks like they embedded OK this time. > Adobe Acrobat is really pretty lame at getting these things right. It's > probably great for straight English prose, but phonetic symbols make it choke. > I was in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago and noticed you were giving a paper on > Romanian at the provincial meeting in Banff. I used to do Romanian back in the > early '70's when i was a Balkanist. What was your paper about? > > Best, > > Bob From rankin at ku.edu Sat Nov 20 16:41:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:41:24 -0600 Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. More. Message-ID: While trying to make acceptable .PDF files of some of my Siouan papers I made a couple of discoveries that may be useful to others. Some phonetic fonts can apparently be converted to .PDF by Adobe, but others cannot. The SIL Siouan Doulos seems to be OK, but the SIL Siouan Manuscript (Courier) font came out with English (?!) words in tables in which letters one space away in the alphabet were substituted for the proper spellings. It is very very strange. The abbreviation OP, for Omaha-Ponca, came out "NO" (or PQ, can't remember which). KS for Kansa came out JR or LT. Bizarre. Acrobat also chokes on the Iroquoian-ABC font, changing all sorts of things and having lots of trouble with the composite characters. It was basically unusable. Acrobat provides two choices for "creating" files (1) PDF writer, and (2) PDF distiller. The first of these doesn't seem to embed fonts for me at all. The second embeds most fonts with the caveats described above. As long as you have the phonetic fonts installed on the computer that is reading the .PDF file, everything looks just fine, but this is deceptive. If you send it to someone and they do not have the TTF fonts installed on their own machine, some of your file may look like gibberish to them. I've been sending out files for quite some time that I assumed were readable, but as it turned out, they were not. The only way to find out what your correspondent will see on the other end is to test the .PDF file you produce on a computer that has no phonetic fonts installed. If it looks OK there, it will probably be readable by anyone. Pam reports that such files can be read by Macs as well as PCs, and that was my only remaining concern. Acrobat just turns out to be a lot lamer than I had figured it was. Maybe the next generation will improve. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Sat Nov 20 17:34:29 2004 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:34:29 EST Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. More. Message-ID: Bob, The problem with embedding fonts may be the result of the .pdf file creator you are using. There is a free program for creating .pdf files that I have been using that embeds IroquoianABC fonts quite nicely. I have been using it for exchanging files with a number of people. The program is called PdfCreator and is available as a free download from _http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator_ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator) or from _http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm_ (http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm) . The only restriction is that the receiver of the file must have Acrobat 5.0 or higher (i.e one of the more recent editions) to read the file. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 20 18:50:33 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:50:33 +0100 Subject: Adobe Acrobat and Siouan fonts. Macintosh Message-ID: >The problem with embedding fonts may be the result of the .pdf file creator you are using. There is a free program for creating .pdf files that I have been using that embeds IroquoianABC fonts quite nicely. I have been using it for exchanging files with a number of people. The program is called PdfCreator and is available as a free download from http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator or from http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/download_en.htm. The only restriction is that the receiver of the file must have Acrobat 5.0 or higher (i.e one of the more recent editions) to read the file.<< Whereas the 1st URL is talking of 'window'-applications (only?), the 2nd one is giving hope to MacOS users! See the German version and its TV report (=Kurztest) http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/berichte_ndr.htm telling that it'd be still easier with Mac providing the possibility to generate the PDF-file directly from the operating system i.e. without the need for any add-on program. Alfred From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 21 03:37:29 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:37:29 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: Hi all, I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have data on right now are Hiraca cakaka and Hocak waniNk. I don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? Just from what I have so far, it looks like the Biloxi (B) and Ofo (O) words are definitely cognate, but I'm not so sure they're cognate with Hiraca and Hocak. Also, the B and O words appear possibly cognate with Cherokee tsiskwa. (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O perhaps through borrowing.) Any info, thoughts, or comments are greatly appreciated! Thanks. (BTW--Checked with Pam Munro on Muskogean. She specifically cited Chickasaw foshi' for bird, which is apparently similar to other Muskogean languages as well, so there doesn't appear to be any Muskogean influence on B and O in this case.) Dave --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shanwest at shaw.ca Sun Nov 21 05:33:57 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:33:57 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David Kaufman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for > 'bird', *kudeska* and *teska*, respectively, are cognate with other > Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have > data on right now are Hiraca *cakaka* and Hocak *waniNk*. I > don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language > words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? Assiniboine for 'bird' is sitkaN. Shannon From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 21 10:55:45 2004 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?Big5?B?IkFsZnJlZCBXLiBUdSJ0aW5nIg==?=) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:55:45 +0100 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: > am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. The only other Siouan languages I have data on right now are Hiraca cakaka and Hocak waniNk. I don't currently know what the Dakota/Lakhota or other Siouan language words are. Anyone care to enlighten me? [...]<< Dakota/Lakota bird is _zitkala_/'zintkala' [ziNtka'la] - apparently a diminutive form so maybe formerly used for 'small birds'? (Cf. Chinese 'birds' (BIG5) ?? niao3que4 lit.: bird-sparrow (with niao having the ancient meaning of bigger/long-tailed bird whereas the character ? is composed by ? xiao3 small and ? zhui1 'short-tailed bird'.) Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sun Nov 21 16:23:47 2004 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:23:47 -0500 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'll add to Shannon's contribution by adding another form widely attested in Assiniboine, namely, zitka'na ~ ziNtka'na (bearing in mind that when it - or any vowel-final word - is said in isolation the final vowel is whispered). My primary consultant's Indian name is Zitka'na tho wiNyaN 'Bluebird Woman'. Linda From rankin at ku.edu Sun Nov 21 16:42:58 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:42:58 -0600 Subject: Siouan 'bird' Message-ID: > I am trying to resolve whether the Taneks (Biloxi) and Ofo words for 'bird', kudeska and teska, respectively, are cognate with other Siouan words for the same. Just from what I have so far, it looks like the Biloxi (B) and Ofo (O) words are definitely cognate, but I'm not so sure they're cognate with Hiraca and Hocak. Also, the B and O words appear possibly cognate with Cherokee tsiskwa. The B&O forms are isolated within Siouan and could stem from eariler Proto-B&O *reska or maybe *teska. You also want to include the Ofo term /tefka/ (the expected outcome of *reska) in your calculations. Biloxi and Ofo /s/ shouldn't actually correspond (in Ofo *s > f generally). That alone should make you suspicious of these forms and suggest that you're dealing with a borrowing. This tends to be confirmed by the Ofo doublets. The forms also mean 'flea' (or other insectoid vermin), so, from a semantic point of view, they may be following the usage found in Dakotan, where small birds are referred to as "tree fleas". But the Dakotan terms are transparent compounds and not at all cognate with B&O -- just the metaphor is common. The final evidence for the status of the Biloxi and Ofo bird terms comes from (a) the Cherokee term, which you've already discovered, and (b) the Koasati term /tiskahomma/ 'cardinal, redbird', where /homma/ is pan-Muskogean for 'red'. That leaves Koasati /tiska/, Cherokee /tsiskwa/, Biloxi /deska ~ teska/ and Ofo /teska ~ tefka/ representing a Southeastern diffused term. I don't know that we had noticed the Cherokee term before, so congratulations on finding a new item that tends to confirm the areal nature of this term. Bob From shanwest at shaw.ca Sun Nov 21 21:35:57 2004 From: shanwest at shaw.ca (Shannon West) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:35:57 -0800 Subject: Siouan 'bird' In-Reply-To: <1101054227.41a0c1134bd8c@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: >I'll add to Shannon's contribution by adding another form widely attested in >Assiniboine, namely, zitka'na ~ ziNtka'na (bearing in mind that when it - or any >vowel-final word - is said in isolation the final vowel is whispered). My >primary consultant's Indian name is Zitka'na tho wiNyaN 'Bluebird Woman'. > >Linda > > > Yep yep. I have the first consonant as both z and s from different speakers. Sometimes I hear it almost as a [ts] which is really odd. ZitkaN + na I have as a diminutive form, but I've doubted that for a while already. One of these days, I'd really like to look into that -na ending. :) Shannon From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun Nov 21 23:53:03 2004 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:53:03 -0800 Subject: Northern Iroquoian bird In-Reply-To: <20041121033729.10700.qmail@web53802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In answer to Dave's question, although I haven't made a thorough comparative study of this, I think one can reconstruct a Proto-Northern-Iroquoian noun root *-tsi?t- for "bird". The ts usually comes out as a voiced palatal affricate, so this is pronounced more like -ji?t-. I'm using ? for a glottal stop. I suspect that the *tsi part is cognate between PNI and Cherokee. Wally > (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' > from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed > Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O > perhaps through borrowing.) From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Nov 22 00:11:49 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:11:49 -0800 Subject: Northern Iroquoian and Algonquian bird Message-ID: Interesting. This immediately reminds me of the Mahican (Hudson Valley, Algonquian) form for 'bird', which appears to phonemically be something like /ci:htsi:s/ or /ci:htci:s/ ('c' = c-hacek). This also appears in Mohegan (southeast Connecticut) as /cits/, tho given the usual total lack of borrowing betwen Algonquian and Iroquoian, I'm inclined to attribute it to onomatopoeia in both families. David Costa > In answer to Dave's question, although I haven't made a thorough > comparative study of this, I think one can reconstruct a > Proto-Northern-Iroquoian noun root *-tsi?t- for "bird". The ts usually > comes out as a voiced palatal affricate, so this is pronounced more like > -ji?t-. I'm using ? for a glottal stop. I suspect that the *tsi part is > cognate between PNI and Cherokee. Wally >> (I'd welcome any info from the Iroquoianists on 'bird' >> from the northern Iroquoian languages to check if this is indeed >> Iroquoian, or a Cherokee renegade word possibly cognate with B and O >> perhaps through borrowing.) From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 03:31:11 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:31:11 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: >>From Wally's and David's postings, it looks as though the Cherokee form isn't a part of the SE set after all. Just the forms with initial /t/ or /d/. I had thought maybe Cherokee had assibilated a /t/ in their form, but it's likely part of a larger Iroquoian cognate set, and perhaps part of the affricate and high front vowel sound symbolism discussed by Sapir in his journal of psychology paper and rediscovered by Greenberg later and published in the Stanford U. Working Papers in Linguistic Universals about 30 yrs. ago. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 18:24:12 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:24:12 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <0b3a01c4d043$bc1d0060$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: >>From Wally's and David's postings, it looks as though the Cherokee form isn't a part of the SE set after all. Just the forms with initial /t/ or /d/. I had thought maybe Cherokee had assibilated a /t/ in their form, but it's likely part of a larger Iroquoian cognate set, and perhaps part of the affricate and high front vowel sound symbolism discussed by Sapir in his journal of psychology paper and rediscovered by Greenberg later and published in the Stanford U. Working Papers in Linguistic Universals about 30 yrs. ago. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that?s new in My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 19:59:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:59:29 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <20041122182413.39357.qmail@web53801.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, David Kaufman wrote: > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this > term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their > words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing > would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, > and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure > why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the > Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther > from Cherokee than the others. Biloxi may have moved further south in the 1600s, from an earlier position closer to the Ohio. Conceivably its areal influences antedate (or at least began before) it's more southerly location. The same applies to Ofo. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 21:19:04 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:19:04 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Moreover, the Koasatis were likely in touch with Cherokee at some point, but Biloxi and Ofo weren't as far as anyone can tell. The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other languages. Also Atakapa, Chitimacha, Natchez, Tunica and what exists of the Florida languages like Timucua. The ultimate source of "wanderwoerter" is often very hard to pin down. Bob > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 22 21:21:46 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:21:46 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Evidence for the Ofo is that they came down the Mississippi, but the point of diffusion for Ohio Valley Siouan is unknown. The best guess is West Virginia somewhere. Biloxi routes are simply unknown. > Biloxi may have moved further south in the 1600s, from an earlier position > closer to the Ohio. Conceivably its areal influences antedate (or at > least began before) it's more southerly location. The same applies to > Ofo. From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 22:17:21 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:17:21 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: -- so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't.-- I did have a problem with the lack of affricate in Siouan and Koasati. Close but no cigar, I guess! (But fun trying nonetheless!) Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Moreover, the Koasatis were likely in touch with Cherokee at some point, but Biloxi and Ofo weren't as far as anyone can tell. The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other languages. Also Atakapa, Chitimacha, Natchez, Tunica and what exists of the Florida languages like Timucua. The ultimate source of "wanderwoerter" is often very hard to pin down. Bob > Is it not possible, however, that Koasati, Ofo, and Biloxi borrowed this term from Iroquoian Cherokee? Otherwise, where did K, O and B get their words, which don't match other Siouan or Muskogean terms? Borrowing would be especially understandable (I think) between Cherokee, Koasati, and Ofo which were geographically fairly close, although I'm not sure why Biloxi would have gotten it when it didn't affect any of the Muskogean languages down south in that region, and Biloxi is farther from Cherokee than the others. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! ? Get yours free! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahartley at d.umn.edu Mon Nov 22 22:51:27 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:51:27 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I > only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other > languages. Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 23:21:01 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:21:01 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <41A26D6F.3030104@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise > 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue > jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. > > Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin > s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. > > These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would represent that. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 22 23:31:03 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:31:03 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4d0d8$e5c12410$15b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very > much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the > affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other > SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and > that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both > of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. Cherokee has tsiskwa 'bird' per David and Wally indicates that "Proto-Northern-Iroquoian {has a] noun root *-tsi?t- for 'bird'" and that the *tsi part of this is probably cognate with the Cherokee form, but he didn't actually say that the Proto-Iroquoian would be *tsi. Remembering that affrication is often a parallel shift, and knowing essentially nothing about Proto-Iroquoian (or recent Iroquoian), Northern or Southern or combined, I was wondering if were possible that affrication were fairly recent in at least the Cherokee case. I agree that it seems more like that a ts would be borrowed as c^, otherwise, given Muskogean and Biloxi phonology. From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon Nov 22 23:48:53 2004 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:48:53 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That tsi- looks like the trace of a very old morpheme, no longer generally segmentable and certainly not productive, that appears in numerous terms for birds, bugs, and other such things. The -?t actually matches in form a common nominalizer in the modern languages (which also systematically match instrumental applicatives and causatives). So though this form is not synchronically analyzable, I'd say there's good evidence that it was once segmentable. The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsisk?:ko. Marianne --On Monday, November 22, 2004 4:31 PM -0700 Koontz John E wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: >> No, I think not for several reasons. Cherokee doesn't participate very >> much in the Southeast Sprachbund. But the main problem is the >> affricate. It's apparently reconstructible in Iroquoian, so any other >> SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and >> that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both >> of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't. > > Cherokee has tsiskwa 'bird' per David and Wally indicates that > "Proto-Northern-Iroquoian {has a] noun root *-tsi?t- for 'bird'" and that > the *tsi part of this is probably cognate with the Cherokee form, but he > didn't actually say that the Proto-Iroquoian would be *tsi. Remembering > that affrication is often a parallel shift, and knowing essentially > nothing about Proto-Iroquoian (or recent Iroquoian), Northern or Southern > or combined, I was wondering if were possible that affrication were fairly > recent in at least the Cherokee case. > > I agree that it seems more like that a ts would be borrowed as c^, > otherwise, given Muskogean and Biloxi phonology. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Nov 23 00:54:20 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:54:20 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise >>'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue >>jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. >> >>Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin >>s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. >> >>These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. > > > This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of > the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for > 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a > jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would > represent that. I think at least the ta- part might be onomatopoeic. (BTW, Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay.) I connect rusty hinges with blackbirds (esp. redwings). Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 23 07:06:27 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:06:27 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <24210140.1101138533@[192.168.2.40]> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Marianne Mithun wrote: > The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond > for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. > Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsisk?:ko. Or Osage s^iNkkokkoke 'robin', cf. the robin's alarm call, characterized in birding guides as teek-tuk-tuk. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 23 07:31:19 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:31:19 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <41A28A3C.20600@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Alan H. Hartley wrote: > > This might well work for 'cardinal', but I don't think tis matches any of > > the blue jay calls, and it's not the usual form of onomatopoeic name for > > 'blue jay'. "Jay" is actually more the typical sort of onomatopoeic for a > > jay. There's also that rusty hinge noise, but I don't know how one would > > represent that. > > I think at least the ta- part might be onomatopoeic. (BTW, Ojibway has > di:ndi:si for blue jay.) I guess it's possible. Winnebago j^eej^ec^(?e); IO c^he taiN 'jay; three buffaloes'; Osage kkittanika. Other terms are descriptive, e.g., Dakotan ziNtkatho(gleglegha) '(spotted) blue bird', or mysterious, e.g., OP iNc^haN'ga giu'daN 'fond of mice'. The "jay" call when loud is apparently a mobbing call, but also used in courtship in a softer version. > I connect rusty hinges with blackbirds (esp. redwings). That I do know how to represent! In OP you find maNgdhiNxta 'red-wing blackbird'. There a series of "comparable" forms in Northern Iroquoian, too. That is, they resemble each other and the redwing's alarm call, but not the OP form. The Iroquoian versions - which I forget - are rather like the version in the bird guides - okalee.) The jay's rusty hinge call is involved in courtship and is described in my birding guide as the "wheedelee" call. (The guide I'm using is Stokes - A Guide to the Behavior of Common Birds.) From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Nov 23 13:48:14 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:48:14 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 14:59:50 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:59:50 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Win a few, lose a few. That's the sport of it. Animal/bird names are good places to look for borrowings though. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kaufman" To: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:17 PM Subject: Re: bird. > -- so any other SE language that borrowed it would have to have adopted [ts] as /t/, and that's extremely unlikely for languages like Muskogean and Siouan, both of which had /c/ phonemes they could have substituted but didn't.-- I did have a problem with the lack of affricate in Siouan and Koasati. Close but no cigar, I guess! (But fun trying nonetheless!) From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:07:56 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:07:56 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: I agree that some element of sound symbolism may be involved, especially with the Iroquoian/Algonquian similarity with this term. But it doesn't preclude borrowing, and, in fact, probably renders diffusion more likely. I'm not so sure about the words with /t/ rather than /c/ and I'm not convinced by the specific Alabama "explanation". If it were accurate, why isn't the Ala. form /*ciskomma/?? And I always thought Cardinals said "Gwitsi, gwitsi, gwitsi" . . . . :-) bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan H. Hartley" To: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: bird. > > The next thing to check is how far the /tiskahomma/ 'redbird' term extends. I > > only have it in Koasati, but it would be worth looking for in Alabama and other > > languages. > > Alabama tiskomma 'cardinal' (prob. onomatopoeic from the noise > 'tististis' made by the bird, + homma 'red.' And cf. tiskila 'blue > jay.') Sylvestine et al. s.v. > > Creek tasi [both vowels at normal pitch] 'blue jay' (Martin & Mauldin > s.v.) No obvious cognate to tiskahomma. > > These all look (sound) onomatopoeic to me. > > Alan > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:13:21 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:13:21 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: > The Cherokee form looks like a lot of words through Iroquoian and beyond > for 'robin', one of those words that turns up all over the continent. > Mohawk for 'robin', for example, is tsisk?:ko. Robin . . . now there's a term that has overlapping phonemes sets all over the place. Especially the -koko part is found all over the East. But parts of it are unidentifiable in each family. You can make a looooong list with that one! Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:18:38 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:18:38 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: > Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay. Looks like one of the Dakotan forms in tiN-, doesn't it?? Like I said, bird names are somewhat similar all over the place. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 23 15:38:14 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:38:14 -0600 Subject: bird. Message-ID: There are a couple of 'hawk' terms reconstructible in Proto-Siouan. *kyetaN is one of them. The Dhegiha cognate set is from intermediate *kretaN. I've left off accent 'cause I can't remember off the top of my head where it is, but I think it's on the 1st syllable, so it may have a long V. This term seems to have been a common medium sized raptor. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "REGINA PUSTET" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:48 AM Subject: Re: bird. > How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? > > Regina > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! From ahartley at d.umn.edu Tue Nov 23 15:46:28 2004 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:46:28 -0600 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <00cc01c4d16e$37aa9370$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: > And I always thought Cardinals said "Gwitsi, gwitsi, gwitsi" . . Cf. Ojibway gijigijiga:neshi:N [j affricate, sh fricative] 'chickadee.' I suppose it's onomatopoeic, though it doesn't sound much like "chickadee-dee-dee," which is a very good likeness. (I should note that the Ojibway words I've cited are Southwestern dialect from Nichols & Nyholm _Concise Dict. of Minnesota Ojibwe_.) And Oj. gwi:ngwi:shi: [vowel-length uncertain] 'Canada (gray) jay, whiskeyjack' (inferred from gwingwishi 'a kind of small magpie' in Baraga _Dict. Otchipwe Lang._, Southwestern dial.) Gwi:ngwi:sh is 'blue jay' in Rhodes _Eastern Ojibwa_, which confirms my length guesses for Baraga's first two vowels.) Sorry--not Siouan. Alan From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 15:57:44 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:57:44 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <00ee01c4d16f$b6695d30$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > > Ojibway has di:ndi:si for blue jay. > > Looks like one of the Dakotan forms in tiN-, doesn't it?? Like I said, bird > names are somewhat similar all over the place. > Related Miami-Illinois has /teenteekihsa/ (and plover /teentia/). Given the blue jays raucous voice, an onomotopeic origin is somewhat expected. (The blue jay actually has a very chime- or bell-like call, too.) Michael From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 16:01:37 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:01:37 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: <012201c4d172$745968b0$1cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: It's difficult not to see some sort of similarity between that an Proto-Algonquian /kinliwa/ 'golden eagle', a term where that /-l-/ went to /t/ in some languages, such as Fox /kitiwa/ and Miami-Illinois /kintiwa/. Michael On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > There are a couple of 'hawk' terms reconstructible in Proto-Siouan. *kyetaN is > one of them. The Dhegiha cognate set is from intermediate *kretaN. I've left > off accent 'cause I can't remember off the top of my head where it is, but I > think it's on the 1st syllable, so it may have a long V. This term seems to > have been a common medium sized raptor. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "REGINA PUSTET" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:48 AM > Subject: Re: bird. > > > > How does Lakota chetaN 'hawk' fit into the overall scenario? > > > > Regina > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > > > From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Tue Nov 23 17:51:57 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:51:57 -0500 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > It's difficult not to see some sort of similarity between that an > Proto-Algonquian /kinliwa/ 'golden eagle', a term where that /-l-/ went to > /t/ in some languages, such as Fox /kitiwa/ and Miami-Illinois /kintiwa/. > Michael Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. Michael From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Nov 24 00:04:04 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0700 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: > Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. So we're comparing something like Fox ke tiwa P(MV?)S *kyetaN or PA *kenliwa P(MV?)S *kyetaN That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey and later there's only gdhebaN. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Nov 24 00:18:49 2004 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:18:49 -0800 Subject: bird. Message-ID: Can *kyetaN be reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Siouan, or only Proto-Mississippi Valley? David > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >> Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. > > So we're comparing something like > > Fox ke tiwa > P(MV?)S *kyetaN > > or > > PA *kenliwa > P(MV?)S *kyetaN > > That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly > irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h > for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da > c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently > involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two > others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. > I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. > > Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey > and later there's only gdhebaN. > From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Nov 24 00:59:53 2004 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:59:53 -0800 Subject: bird. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Da > c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently > involved. So the proto-form has a k. What a pity. I brought up chetaN 'hawk' because I thought it might be intriguingly close to roots such as tsi[?t] 'bird' in Iroquoian, which was mentioned earlier in the discussion. But then, I have never done reconstruction, so this might be just a wild guess. Regina --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! ? Get yours free! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Wed Nov 24 14:07:31 2004 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael Mccafferty) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:07:31 -0500 Subject: Siouan and Algonquian eagles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, I agree with you that it's a stretch, trying to connect these old Proto-Siouan and Proto-Algonquian terms for "golden eagle". Is the Proto-Siouan form analyzable? The Proto-Algonquian form seems to hint at the notion "high," but that's just a hint. :) Michael From rankin at ku.edu Wed Nov 24 15:30:41 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:30:41 -0600 Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: There seem to be Mandan and Biloxi cognates, but, as John says, there are interesting irregularities. *kyetaN seems to be composed of at least two and perhaps more morphemes. It represents a medium-sized hawk or falcon (Buteo). There is another word for the largest hawk, tho', as I recall, it too has the rare *ky cluster. From my own point of view, ANY Siouan stem that begins with a *kC cluster is liable to be historically bimorphemic. K-clusters are inherently suspicious in Siouan as there are so many different prefixes in K that tend to lose vowels by syncope and form clusters. We don't seem to have Crow or Hidatsa cognates for the 'hawk' sets, so proto-Siouan could be questioned, but the Biloxi and Mandan forms make it very old, however far back that takes us. Crow and Hidatsa are probably worth another search. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Costa" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:18 PM Subject: Re: bird. > Can *kyetaN be reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Siouan, or only > Proto-Mississippi Valley? > > David > > > >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Mccafferty wrote: >>> Dave Costa has pointed out that its PA */kenliwa/ and Fox /ketiwa/. >> >> So we're comparing something like >> >> Fox ke tiwa >> P(MV?)S *kyetaN >> >> or >> >> PA *kenliwa >> P(MV?)S *kyetaN >> >> That's a little more different than usual. The Siouan set is slightly >> irregular, in that Dakota varies a bit in whether it exhibits Cc^ or c^h >> for *Cy. For example, Da (wi)kc^emna[N] : OP *gdheb(dh)aN 'ten', but Da >> c^hetaH : OP gdhedaN 'hawk'. In both cases initial *kye- is apparently >> involved. There are a certain number of these *Cy sets, however. Two >> others I recall offhand are *pyaphaNk- 'mosquito' and *e-p-ye 'I think'. >> I seem to recall that there's another *ky in another 'bird' set. >> >> Note, on 'ten': OP has gdhebdhaN 'ten' in old word lists, but in Dorsey >> and later there's only gdhebaN. >> > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 02:11:12 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:11:12 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: <00af01c4d23a$a2623de0$16b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > There seem to be Mandan and Biloxi cognates, but, as John says, there > are interesting irregularities. *kyetaN seems to be composed of at > least two and perhaps more morphemes. It represents a medium-sized hawk > or falcon (Buteo). There is another word for the largest hawk, tho', as > I recall, it too has the rare *ky cluster. PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' Ma titaNhe 'hawk' Da c^hetaN' 'hawk' OP gdhe'daN 'hawk' OS letaN' Ks ledaN' Qu kde'taN IO greduN' 'hawk' Wi kerejuN'(sep) '(Black)hawk' Bi *kyetoNhi 'duck hawk' PS *kyaNs^ka' 'hawk' Da c^haNs^ka' 'large hawk' OP gdhaNs^ka' Qu xnaNs^ka' (kn, not xn, expected) Bi *kiyaNska' 'marsh hawk' PMV *rukyaN' 'think' Da yukc^aN 'to comprehend' OP i'dhigdhaN 'to decide' IO iirugraN 'to think' WI rukaNraN' 'to manage' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 17:00:48 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:00:48 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just dashed this off over the weekend without thinking much about it, to provide the forms supporting Bob's comment. The material is from the CSD draft, of course, but with one change and some omissions of Southeastern forms that might not fit as well. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' > > Ma titaNhe 'hawk' (Ma ti- : PS *kye- not otherwise attested) ... (the uN vowels in IO and Wi are unexpected) > Bi *kyetoNhi 'duck hawk' (maybe oN is unexpected) I added the *-h(e) on my own authority, based on the Mandan and Biloxi forms. I suspect it's just an h-final stem. That is, some CVC-stems are CVh-stems. The editors have been coming to grips with these in the course of the editing. This element of Siouan morphology was a discovery of CSD editors I believe. I'm not sure who recognized what, except in one detail. The *-h(e) is usually lost pretty much everywhere in such stems, but traces can remain in Crow-Hidatsa, e.g., Crow final diphthongs -ia and -ua where intervocalic h is lost (no CH forms attested for this stem); in Mandan, e.g., -h resurfacing with some noun stems before what I might call the absolute marker -e; in Mississippi Valley if -ka follows, yielding, e.g., Da -kha, OP -kka, IO -khe, Wi -ke, from *-h-ka. The behavior of *-h-ka was, I think, first noted by Bob Rankin. In this case it appears that Biloxi follows the Mandan pattern. I'm not sure if this has been noticed in a Biloxi form before, and so, perhaps, I have misanalyzed the behavior here. I love the *-h-ka forms because they help confirm that *-a > -e / [velar]__## occurs in Winnebago as well as Ioway-Otoe, even though most final -e are later lost there. Biloxi does have final -i in various contexts that behaves like the -e increments to stems elsewhere. Particularly widespread is -di < *-r-e where presumably the *r is epenthetic. This is something noted by Dick Carter early on. I don't recall whether he felt *r was epenthetic or organic. I think everyone who has pondered the matter has argued either way at various times. At the moment I favor epenthetic myself. Carter compared Biloxi -di to the underlying -r that resurfaces before -e in some Mandan nouns. In Mandan some superficially V-final nouns add -re to form the absolute, just as some add -he (per the above) or -?e or -r?e. A similar -r appears with some verb stems when the declarative -o?s^ is added, etc., and -di appears with both nouns and verbs in Biloxi as far as I can recall at the moment without looking. The following was the other 'hawk' form that Bob and I remembered, he apparently in more detail than I. > PS *kyaNs^ka' 'hawk' > > Da c^haNs^ka' 'large hawk' > > OP gdhaNs^ka' > Qu xnaNs^ka' (kn, not xn, expected) > > Bi *kiyaNska' 'marsh hawk' (s^ka, not ska, expected) This is unusual in that the initial *kyV- has a kiyV reflex in Biloxi. This obviously recalls the verb 'to fly'. This set has a number of irregularities in it. The final stress seems a bit odd to me, too. Final -ka in this stem doesn't behave at all like the -ka formant rather common in terms for animals, etc., in various Siouan languages. The following is just an example of *ky in another context. > PMV *rukyaN' 'think' > > Da yukc^aN 'to comprehend' > > OP i'dhigdhaN 'to decide' > > IO iirugraN 'to think' > WI rukaNraN' 'to manage' From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Nov 29 21:00:22 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:00:22 -0700 Subject: PMV Nasal Vowel Correspondences (Re: Hawk.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Koontz John E wrote: > PS *kyetaNhe ~ *kyetuNhe 'hawk' > ... (the uN vowels in IO and Wi are unexpected) Except for the *a > e shift in Winnebago and Ioway-Otoe in final position after velars and the various vexed final-position sets due to morphology, Siouan vowel correspondences are pretty much whatever > same thing. This is certainly very odd from a perspective of European linguistic history! The main exception is the Great Dhegiha Vowel Shift (to invent a name for it) in which u > u-umlaut (Osage, Kaw) > i (OP, Quapaw), and o > u (OP). In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. There some tendency for initial o > u in IO and Quapaw, too, if I remember correctly. As far as Dorsey is concerned *aN, *uN > aN, too. In some sources this merged vowel is written oN and it is perhaps dialect-variable, certainly language variable. More recent scholars (Rankin, Quintero) have noticed that there may actually be some degree of aN : oN contrast in at least Kaw and Osage, presumably recording *aN : *uN. Some of this coincided with x vs. gh effects on neighboring vowels in OP, but maybe not all of it. There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern peripheries, too, I guess. However, there are also some oddities like the *kyetVNh-e 'small hawk' set. Normally, thanks to the GDVS for PMV : Da : Dh : WiIO we get *aN : aN : aN : aN and *uN : uN : aN : uN, but there are a few cases of *??? : aN : aN : uN as in this set, e.g., PS *kyetuN(he) : Da c^hetaN : OP gdhedaN : IO greduN. Note that the -d- in the IO form is one of those generally written with the letter t. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Nov 29 23:28:29 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:28:29 -0600 Subject: Vowel Correspondences Message-ID: At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian either directly or indirectly. > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter case is analogical rather than phonological though. > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > peripheries, too, I guess. Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to vowel length. In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City. Bob From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Nov 30 17:03:27 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:03:27 EST Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: I've found two stems meaning 'hawk' in Crow, one of which has two variants: c^ilaxc^i' 'hawk' (my data) c^ilaxta' 'hawk' (Dictionary of Everyday Crow) issaxc^i' 'sparrow hawk, falcon' It seems to me that c^il- could easily be derived from kye-, but I don't know about the rest of it. Maybe the xc^ cluster was simplified in the rest of Siouan. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 30 17:41:29 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:41:29 -0700 Subject: Hawk. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 Rgraczyk at aol.com wrote: > c^ilaxc^i' 'hawk' (my data) > c^ilaxta' 'hawk' (Dictionary of Everyday Crow) > issaxc^i' 'sparrow hawk, falcon' > > It seems to me that c^il- could easily be derived from kye-, but I don't know > about the rest of it. Maybe the xc^ cluster was simplified in the rest of > Siouan. I think Crow c^i is usually from *ki, right? So then this suggests something like *kira-, which would make sense for the first syllable. My initial instinct with xc^i/xta is that it looks a lot like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic in MVS, etc. I'm don't recall if that occurs in Crow-Hidatsa. But I would expect something like -ta or -tu - can't remember how *t comes out before *u! - for *-taN or *-tuN. And then maybe -a for *-he? So, for *kyetVNh-e something like *c^ilata(a) or *c^ilatua? I don't see how to work the xt/xc^, even with simplification elsewhere. Too bad it's not ht/hc^! Then some kind of metathesis might be conceivable. Note, however, that the notes to the CSD entry talk about the hawk stem maybe involving several roots compounded together. Would issa- be from *ikta- or *ihta-? I think the *kira- probably fits better, but obviously this isn't impossible either. How about 'think'? I should look at the CSD draft to see if Crow-Hidatsa has any *py set forms. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Nov 30 17:19:31 2004 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:19:31 -0700 Subject: Vowel Correspondences In-Reply-To: <005a01c4d66b$34d67090$01b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, R. Rankin wrote: > At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that > comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian > either directly or indirectly. Of course, I also wonder about 'hawk' in the same sense, though I do doubt 'hawk' is a loanword. Could wagmu(N) ~ wamna(N) reflect an internal avoidance of {w, m} + u(N)? > > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. > > These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is > the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that > peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter > case is analogical rather than phonological though. The benefactive is one example. Analogy could definitely play a role there. I'll see if I can locate another. I kind of think there were some. > > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > > peripheries, too, I guess. > > Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and > changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to > vowel length. That's what I recall, too. > In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. > Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is > an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is > always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to > write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Hmm. Rory, would this tie in with your variant e's? > Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of > years back in Rapid City. Spearfish? From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Nov 30 19:11:12 2004 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:11:12 -0600 Subject: OP u- and udhu- Verbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Rory M Larson wrote: >> In this context, it might be worth mentioning again that our >> speakers insist that the sequence >> >> *uNk-o'-[root] >> >> should be pronounced >> >> ugu'-[root], >> >> not >> >> aNgu'-[root] > > Interesting! No perceptible nasalization? Alright, I'm going to have to backpedal a little bit here. Of our two speakers, one prefers aNgu'-[root], while the other accepts either but seems to favor ugu'-[root]. However, when ugu'-[root] is used, the initial vowel seems to me to be clearly [u], with no perceptible nasalization. Perhaps this is just a bleeding of the accented second syllable vowel into the unaccented first syllable, as seems to happen in several similar morphological situations: *u-aN'-[root] => aNwaN'-[root] *u-iN'-[root] => iNwiN'-[root] *i-o'-[root] => udhu'-[root] *i-aN'-[root] => aNdhaN'-[root] In these cases, the original first vowel is marked by its consonantal epenthesis (u- => @w-; i- => @dh-), but was originally in [vowel] + [vowel] position. But for *uNk-u'-[root] => aNgu'-[root] => ugu'-[root], the vowel leveling has to jump a stop consonant. Rory From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 19:41:52 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:41:52 -0800 Subject: Vowel Correspondences In-Reply-To: <005a01c4d66b$34d67090$01b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Hi Bob, -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? Was it published? Thanks, Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: At least a few of the uN/aN correspondences signal loanwords. The one that comes to mind is 'squash/pumpkin' with LA wagmu; DA wamna, both from Algonquian either directly or indirectly. > In some cases Kaw may have u-umlaut for *i. These are cases of genuine Umlaut, with *i > u" only if another u" is the next vowel to the right. Shouldn't happen otherwise except for that peculiar Kaw benefactive in /gu"/. I assume the mechanism in the latter case is analogical rather than phonological though. > There are some cases of *e, *o > i, u in the Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern > peripheries, too, I guess. Yeah, I'm still not entirely clear on just what the correspondences and changes are with Crow and Hidatsa vs. the rest. Wes had it linked to vowel length. In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the Southeastern areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme /i/, whereas the actual phoneme /e/ is always [epsilon]. Unfortunately a lot of Siouanists have tended to write [e] and [epsilon] with the same phoneme symbol. Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in that little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in Rapid City. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Rgraczyk at aol.com Tue Nov 30 20:42:01 2004 From: Rgraczyk at aol.com (Randolph Graczyk) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:42:01 EST Subject: Hawk. Message-ID: In a message dated 11/30/2004 10:48:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, John.Koontz at colorado.edu writes: I think Crow c^i is usually from *ki, right? So then this suggests something like *kira-, which would make sense for the first syllable. Yes, c^ could be from *ki, although it could also correspond to Hidatsa ts, which I believe reflects PS *s. My initial instinct with xc^i/xta is that it looks a lot like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic in MVS, etc. I'm don't recall if that occurs in Crow-Hidatsa. But I would expect something like -ta or -tu - can't remember how *t comes out before *u! - for *-taN or *-tuN. And then maybe -a for *-he? So, for *kyetVNh-e something like *c^ilata(a) or *c^ilatua? I don't see how to work the xt/xc^, even with simplification elsewhere. Too bad it's not ht/hc^! Then some kind of metathesis might be conceivable. Crow doesn't have anything like the xti/xta 'true, very' enclitic. *tuN would come out as s^u in Crow. Note, however, that the notes to the CSD entry talk about the hawk stem maybe involving several roots compounded together. That is a possibility. c^i- corresponds to one of the many ki's (dative, etc.) in MVS. c^i-laxchi could mean something like 'wrap up one's own', or 'one's own wrapped up or bound'. (c^i- would be a possessive reflexive prefix here.) But that analysis doesn't make much sense to me semantically for a bird term, and it think it is worthwhile to at least pursue the notion that c^ilaxchi' is a basic stem rather than a composite stem. Would issa- be from *ikta- or *ihta-? I think the *kira- probably fits better, but obviously this isn't impossible either. Yes, issa- could be from *ikta- or *ihta. Randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 21:54:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:54:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo Message-ID: > -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern > areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on > "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme > /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas > mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she > says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position. I can't remember if the speakers who did that were from Oklahoma or from Mississippi. My recollection is that the Mobilian Trade Jargon had lots of examples too -- and that's probably the vehicle by which most of the diffusion took place in the lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas. > -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that > little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in > Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? > Was it published? Not yet, although a version will presumably appear in the proceedings of last April's LAVIS meeting in Tuscaloosa. I can mail a preliminary version of the Ofo dict. revision with phonemicizations and a morphosyntax summary. Some of the words in the dict. are still in the orthographic alphabetical order established by Swanton, but I added vowel length from his manuscript card file at the Smithsonian. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 22:25:24 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:25:24 -0600 Subject: Biloxi, Ofo, Tutelo-Saponi, Monyton, etc. Message-ID: I just yesterday received a copy of the brand new Southeast volume on the Handbook of North American Indians from the Smithsonian. It has interesting articles on Ohio Valley Siouan including culture, archaeology, linguistics, locations, etc. Catawban is, of course, also covered, thanks to Blair. I think this may be the thickest single volume yet published in the series (although the broke the Plains and SW into 2 vols. each). There's also a previously unpublished photo of Rosa Pierrite (which they are now spelling to match the Cajun pronunciation), the last known speaker of Ofo, which was nice to see. (The photo of her in the old Swanton survey made her look like Aunt Jemimah (spelling?) about to whup up a mess o' pancakes). This one is much clearer and less stereotyped. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 22:32:39 2004 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:32:39 -0800 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo In-Reply-To: <006801c4d727$2c947640$2ab5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: -- I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position.-- Yes, just reread the article where Haas states that the allophone [e] for 'i' occurs with length and in utterance final position before glottal stop. I don't think this was mentioned by Dorsey in the dictionary however. Dave "R. Rankin" wrote: > -- In the SE there are problems created by notation and also by the > Southeastern > areal feature by which some /i/ may be phonetically [e]. Mary Haas's paper on > "The Last Words of Biloxi" points out that [e] is an allophone of the phoneme > /i/.... -- I just recently got and read this article, and I think Haas > mentions that for words ending in -i', it often comes out as -e', i think she > says when there's silence following. Or did I misread/miscomprehend that? I can't remember all of Haas' environments, but they're in the article. The Choctaw rule, for those who applied it, was /i/ > [e] in utterance-final position. I can't remember if the speakers who did that were from Oklahoma or from Mississippi. My recollection is that the Mobilian Trade Jargon had lots of examples too -- and that's probably the vehicle by which most of the diffusion took place in the lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent areas. > -- Ofo appears to share this trait, and I have a short discussion of it in > that > little Ofo pamphlet I prepared for the Siouan Conf. a couple of years back in > Rapid City.-- Is there some way I can get my hands on a copy of your article? > Was it published? Not yet, although a version will presumably appear in the proceedings of last April's LAVIS meeting in Tuscaloosa. I can mail a preliminary version of the Ofo dict. revision with phonemicizations and a morphosyntax summary. Some of the words in the dict. are still in the orthographic alphabetical order established by Swanton, but I added vowel length from his manuscript card file at the Smithsonian. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Nov 30 22:59:00 2004 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:59:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi/Ofo Message-ID: > . . .Haas states that the allophone [e] for 'i' occurs with length and in > utterance final position before glottal stop. I don't think this was > mentioned by Dorsey in the dictionary however. No, Dorsey always writes the length distinction as if it were a quality distinction. No one has had the courage to undertake a complete analysis of JOD's use of the breve and other vowel diacritics (it would be a massive undertaking). But in Biloxi, it may make a tremendous difference. All linguists since Dorsey have already screwed up Biloxi by collapsing the two series of stops, and I'm afraid the vowels are no different. It is especially important in the SE, where [e] is an allophone of /i/ and [epsilon] is an allophone of /e/, to figure out JOD's transcription. As a starting point, I'd look for his to represent short /e/. Then his with no diacritics will be either [+long] or an allophone of /i/ (or both, unfortunately). But there are other E's (e.g., with circumflex) to deal with too. Haas's comment about [e] representing long /i:/ I find especially interesting, because I think the Ofo rule is the same, and I hadn't reread Haas when doing my Ofo analysis. I'll double check. Thanx for the tip. Bob