KI-form transcriptions.

[R. Rankin]

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.