From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 1 05:57:17 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:57:17 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> As far as I had understood this issue, it's the dative structure, i.e. the personal affix pointing to the "receiver": sunkawankan kin mni wicak'u (he gave water to the horses) - right? <<<< > (David) That's the way it works in languages that have datives for recipients. Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the recipient of the verb 'give': (...) << I'd be interested in examples of other languages. >'give' is syntactically transitive, not ditransitive; only two participants are indexed in the verb, and one of them is the recipient. The so-called accusative or direct object is not an argument. I would not call 'horses' in your example an indirect object in Lakhota -- it's clearly the direct object, from the point of view of the grammar of that language. Lakhota has unambiguous datives marked with -ki-, but this verb doesn't make use of them. << 1) I'd state that the very "idea" of "to give" actually is dative (although there are other - special - verbs for it that are not, e.g. German: "beschenken" -> accusative, etc.). 2) Moreover, I'd suspect that _k'u_ in Lakota is a somewhat unusual form actually having the dative particle _-ki-_ built in (*ki-u -> k'u, phonetically maybe similar to _k'un_ <- *kin un). 3) That's what I found at B. Ingham's: wicacic'u [wicha'chic?u] given as "I gave you to them". Also: wicanic'u [wicha'nic?u] translated as "They gave you to them "in marriage)" (which I'd expected to be wicanic'upi, instead). Maybe Bruce will comment on this? Alfred From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Apr 1 07:58:17 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:58:17 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> (David) That's the way it works in languages that have datives for >> recipients. Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the >> recipient of the verb 'give': (...) << > I'd be interested in examples of other languages. In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: waapamita 'he looks at me' miilita 'he gives (it) to me' Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on a third person object: waapamaka 'I look at him' miilaka 'I give (it) to him' If you want to force a meaning like 'I give him to you', with an overt animate object, you have to mark the animate entity being given by using an inalienably-possessed noun that means 'body, self'. Thus, 'I give him to you' would literally be 'I give you his body/himself'. You can see how semantically this wouldn't be common. David C. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 1 17:41:44 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:41:44 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> I'd be interested in examples of other languages. <<<< >In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: waapamita 'he looks at me' miilita 'he gives (it) to me' Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on a third person object: waapamaka 'I look at him' miilaka 'I give (it) to him'<< Thanks for this explanation. So I grasp that there are different markings to (somewhat generically) indicate that there's an indirect object (which also covers dative). In Dakota, the ki-verbs also express more than just dative - even in the sense of "back again", e.g. (wa)ki'ni - (I) revive; Kini Anpetu - Resurrection/Easter Day; kiska' to fade, lit. to return to an original white color; kiche'pa to become fat again, e.g. waki'chepa-wi June, moon of things getting fat again. As for _k'u_ in Dakota, I'd tend to see it as a - special form of a - ki-verb or a dative-verb sui generis. So I'm very reluctant to call the recipient of _k'u_ (e.g. the horses in sunkawakan kin mni wicak'u) a direct/accusative participant. (???) (BTW, would it make any difference to give it as "Wicasa kin mazaska eya wicak'u"?) Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 1 18:19:09 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:19:09 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424D87D8.6030109@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred, please be careful about Lak. "ki". There are several different morphemes, showing up in different places in the verb, and having different phonologies. The ki- that means 'again' or 'become' that you cite is not the dative or the possessive; it has different grammatical properties. It's much more like the instrumental prefixes than the dative/possessive, though we never seem to list it among the instrumentals. More examples of your morpheme are "kiwas^ic^u" 'turncoat; a Lakhota who is trying to be White" and "kiLakhota" "a White persoon who is trying to behave like a Lakhota" (both terms derogatory). David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T�ting" wrote: > > >> I'd be interested in examples of other languages. <<<< > > > >In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb > 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the > verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. > > So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending > marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: > > waapamita 'he looks at me' > miilita 'he gives (it) to me' > > Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on > a third person object: > > waapamaka 'I look at him' > miilaka 'I give (it) to him'<< > > > Thanks for this explanation. > So I grasp that there are different markings to (somewhat generically) > indicate that there's an indirect object (which also covers dative). In > Dakota, the ki-verbs also express more than just dative - even in the > sense of "back again", e.g. (wa)ki'ni - (I) revive; Kini Anpetu - > Resurrection/Easter Day; kiska' to fade, lit. to return to an original > white color; kiche'pa to become fat again, e.g. waki'chepa-wi June, moon > of things getting fat again. > > As for _k'u_ in Dakota, I'd tend to see it as a - special form of a - > ki-verb or a dative-verb sui generis. So I'm very reluctant to call the > recipient of _k'u_ (e.g. the horses in sunkawakan kin mni wicak'u) a > direct/accusative participant. (???) (BTW, would it make any difference > to give it as "Wicasa kin mazaska eya wicak'u"?) > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 1 18:31:55 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:31:55 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424C15C7.70604@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Pam, Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. When there is morphology to make the distinction, e.g. "the chiefs gave the horses to the women", women will be indexed, and horses will not. Contrast the causatives, which have the morphological tools for expressing three arguments: I made you buy the horses can be s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if something is an "argument" or not, and I agree that all my instincts tell me that the direct object in English should also be an argument in Lakhota. I just think the internal structure of the language denies that. I think linguistic description (theory?) should distinguish grammatical (subject, object) categories from semantic (agent, patient) ones. David David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > David, > > Of course I agree with you that Lakhota 'give' only marks two arguments > on the verb. But can you explain why you feel the patient (I agree with > you that it doesn't seem right to call it either an accusative or a > direct object) is not an argument? Is there syntactic evidence that, for > example, in a sentence with three nouns ('The chief gave the horse to > the woman', or the like) the patient ('horse') behaves syntactically > different from 'woman'? > > Pam > > ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > >Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the recipient of the > >verb 'give': 'give' is syntactically transitive, not ditransitive; only > >two participants are indexed in the verb, and one of them is the > >recipient. The so-called accusative or direct object is not an argument. > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Fri Apr 1 20:08:36 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:08:36 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks! Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is semantically and syntactically completed with three associated "participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) So I think that 'give' is a ditransitive verb, myself, with three arguments, but I would just say that in Lakhota only two arguments at most can be indexed on the verb. (In English, we only index one argument on the verb!) Pam ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Hi, Pam, > Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive >behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. When there is morphology >to make the distinction, e.g. "the chiefs gave the horses to the women", >women will be indexed, and horses will not. Contrast the causatives, >which have the morphological tools for expressing three arguments: I made >you buy the horses can be s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. > I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if >something is an "argument" or not, and I agree that all my instincts tell >me that the direct object in English should also be an argument in >Lakhota. I just think the internal structure of the language denies that. >I think linguistic description (theory?) should distinguish grammatical >(subject, object) categories from semantic (agent, patient) ones. > David > David > > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rankin at ku.edu Fri Apr 1 20:31:55 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:31:55 -0600 Subject: Lakota time keeping. Message-ID: I thought I'd pass on information from the journal _Science_ (25 Mar. '05, p. 1847). While it isn't exactly linguistics, it may be of interest to readers of the list. The Smithsonian Institution has as website illustrating several Lakota Winter counts from the 18th and 19th centuries. These can be viewed at: www.wintercounts.si.edu. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 20:39:10 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:39:10 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424CE2BD.5070407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > I'd be interested in examples of other languages. The within-verb prefixal arguments are pretty much the same in all Mississippi Valley Siouan (MVS). I'm not sure about further afield. As far as I know the potential to mention the patient - "the thing transferred" - as a nominal argument within the clause is also constant across MVS. Within Omaha-Ponca I don't know of syntactic phenomena distinguishing 1) the behavior of nominal patients and recipients of 'give' or dative verbs, or 2) distinguishing arguments and non-arguments (other than prefix concord or presence of postpositions), or 3) associating one or the other with the objects of simple transitives. Postpositions may not be distinctive of non-arguments. I know of some cases of nouns with the akha/ama article (notmally for proximate subjects) but also having postpositions. And I think some more peripheral (locative) nouns may be goverened by locative prefixes. These are areas in which I haven't looked in Dhegiha. Ardis or Catherine may have. > 2) Moreover, I'd suspect that _k'u_ in Lakota is a somewhat unusual form > actually having the dative particle _-ki-_ built in (*ki-u -> k'u, > phonetically maybe similar to _k'un_ <- *kin un). I've suggested this as a possibility, too, but it would have to be way before Dakotan, because *k?u 'give' has reflexes throughout Siouan. Somewhat off the track, but ditto for the *?-stems like *?uN that you mention, though, ironically, in most languages these have non-ejective phonology. I think not all of them are ejective even across Dakotan. In fact, the k?- and uNk?-forms in Dakotan ?-stems and the Winnebago second persons in s^-?- in ?-stems are the only forms of *?-stems with ? that I can recall, and I tend to believe that ? in these forms that have it is secondary. The original inflection pattern seems to have been first person *m-, second person *y-, which look like prevocalic variants of *wa- and *ya-. There is considerable intrusion of second persons in *(s^)-n- from nasalized *r-stems in the ?-stem inflection, e.g., in Dakotan, where n- (< s^-n- (?)) occurs in the second persons of ?-stems. Given Dhegiha z^- < *y- I'd expect Dakotan *c^h-. k From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 21:06:15 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:06:15 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, David Costa wrote: > If you want to force a meaning like 'I give him to you', with an overt > animate object, you have to mark the animate entity being given by using an > inalienably-possessed noun that means 'body, self'. Thus, 'I give him to > you' would literally be 'I give you his body/himself'. You can see how > semantically this wouldn't be common. Exactly. This is where I'd expect one of the Omaha speakers I worked with to start hemming and hawing and regretfully offering rephrasings like "I caused him to have you" or "I said you should marry him," explaining "that's the way we would say it." In Omaha-Ponca (and I think in MVS generally) the patient of 'give' has to be a third person. It's OK to have a nominal element in the clause for a third person "argument" that the verb doesn't agree with (or, better, doesn't represent with a prefix), but that class of "argument" cannot be a non-third person. I'd better say also that I think that having this sort of non-concordial or non-represented "argument" is restricted to particular verbs. There are at least these kinds of verbs that allow (or imply) an additional non-concordial or non-represented "argument": 1) ditransitive verbs like ?i (< *k?u) (not many) 2) dativized verbs (with gi- < *ki) (maybe not all of these) 3) what I've been calling dative subject verbs with stative concord, like dhiNge 'to lack' 4) what I've been calling dative subject verbs with dative concord, like git?e 'one's own to die' I have no idea whether it's reasonable to call these non-represented "arguments" arguments in particular approaches to grammatical theory. Descriptively it makes sense to call them arguments, but they are not arguments in the canonical Siouan sense of being potentially represented as pronominal prefixes. Of course, only certain plural third persons normally produce a representation in the verb, and except perhaps for Dakotan wic^ha- most of these representations of third person plural act more like marking of plurality or indefiniteness than marking of person. I'm trying to avoid saying "govern agreement," because I think agreement implies some sort of secondariness, whereas Siouan personal prefixes seem to be the main pronominal reference, not agreement with an independent pronominal. Independent pronominals, when they occur, are emphatic or contrastive or deictic (in non-personal terms). From okibjonathan at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 21:07:35 2005 From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:07:35 -0800 Subject: Lakota time keeping. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Should you have an interest in Lakota Wintercounts, you might also be interested in seeing the online available Ring Bull Winter Count from archives at Buechel Memorial Lakota Museum in St. Francis, South Dakota, with translations by Linea Sundstrom, Ph.D. The web-site can be found by going to: http://www.sfmission.org/museum/exhibits/wintercounts/ringbull.shtml The following is an introduction from the site: "This winter count is quite similar to that of Iron Shell, published in The Sioux, by Royal Hassrick; however, it has some years that are different from Iron Shell�s. A Miniconjou or Brule authorship is most likely, based on the similarities to Iron Shell�s account. My notes are in brackets; Buechel�s notes are in parentheses, as they appear on the original. I have not attempted to put the spelling into any of the standard Lakota orthographies. Buechel recorded two versions of each year name�that originally taken down and a later revision. In other words, two copies of the winter count are on file in the Buechel archives. These are both given in the list below The third line of each entry is my translation. I have used the symbol 'h' for the 'dotted h' used in Buechel�s orthography, because my word processing program does not have the dotted h." -- LS 1808-09 1. Cega cica wan c�n kante. Cega cinca wan c�n kate. Kettle�s child was killed by a tree. 1809-10 2. Capa cika ti ile. C�pa cika ti ile. Little Beaver�s house burned. [This was a white trader, probably Loisel.] 1810-11 3. Sinte wa ki�ju aglipi. Sinte aki�ju aglipi. They brought back horses with decorated tails. 1811-12 4. Waniyetu wica akiran. (9 Cloud Shield�s) Waniyetu wica akik�an. The people were starving in winter. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ "R. Rankin" wrote: I thought I'd pass on information from the journal _Science_ (25 Mar. '05, p. 1847). While it isn't exactly linguistics, it may be of interest to readers of the list. The Smithsonian Institution has as website illustrating several Lakota Winter counts from the 18th and 19th centuries. These can be viewed at: www.wintercounts.si.edu. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 21:22:45 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:22:45 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive > behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. "Indexing" is the word I was looking for, I think, where I cobbled together an expedient "representing." I think it's been suggested that languages which select the "higher ranked" object (recipient over patient) be called "primary object languages," the primary object being the recipient if specified or specifiable and the patient otherwise. However, I'm not sure this is much more than a more an expanded terminology for "case marking/agreement" patterns. It labels the pattern, but doesn't explain anything. > Contrast the causatives, which have the morphological tools for > expressing three arguments: I made you buy the horses can be > s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. Does it seem fair to say that causatives can do this because they have two stems to attach indexing morphology to? Also, is the case that the kind of indexing morphology allowed with the embedded stem (here ophe..thuN) is restricted to third person marking? If so this may be a way of demonstrating that third person (plural) marking is different in character from non-third person marking - less inflectional, more derivational. Dakotan is a bit of a special case because of wic^ha-, but my inclination in Dhegiha is to see parallel uses of wa- as a "third person plural object" as a sort of drafting of the derived indefinite object form as an indexed form. > I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if > something is an "argument" or not, .... Me either, though I'm guiltily aware that this may be because I haven't looked. It's something of a relief that your more sophisticated and extended investigations of Lakota also leave you without any ready instances of such tests! Does anyone else have any suggestions? kk From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 22:04:27 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:04:27 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DAA44.1020809@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which > is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in > fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't > freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is > semantically and syntactically completed with three associated > "participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when > talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of > the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject > of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not > just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew > any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the "experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). From munro at ucla.edu Fri Apr 1 22:26:47 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:26:47 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal (third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi -- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be called subcategorization.) Pam Koontz John E wrote: >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > >>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which >>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in >>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't >>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is >>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated >>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when >>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of >>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject >>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not >>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew >>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) >> >> > >I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be >used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, >by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or >participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb >Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If >non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, >statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the >"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and >said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 2 01:44:35 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:44:35 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DCAA7.4060803@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of fun. The kind of verb you're asking for (only 3rd person singular argument possible, not phonomenological) seems like it'd be hard to come by in any language -- can you provide a possible example from English or some other language you know? All I can think of would be the modal-like verbs like iyecheca 'necessary' or nachece 'maybe', which take propositions as their "subjects". Or maybe an intransitive that cannot have an animate argument, so "pi" would be impossible -- e.g. do plants 'grow' or 'die' with a different verb than do people? Two minutes of research in Ingham gives a verb "uya" for 'to grow (longer), as hair'; back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Are there any speakers of Lakhota out there who can comment on this word? Does it ever take a plural "subject"? And if not, what does that tell us? The morphology of third singular won't reveal anything about whether or not that "subject" is an argument. More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by "argument". I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be Lakhota-specific; I think you have to find criteria for grammatical argument status one language at a time. And as John said, (I think), my example with three arguments for the causative works only because there are two verb stems involved. I have no objection to claims that the logical structure of 'give' universally includes three entities, but I do object to the hypothesis that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" or "indirect" in all languages. Given that _k'u_ can take only two affixes at most, and that one is the giver and the other the recipient, I still claim that the third "entity" involved is not part of the core argument structure of this verb in this language. I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, and has only one argument, logic or no logic. Maybe my structuralist upbringing is leaking through here (I learned lingusitics first from Charles Hockett), but I need concrete evidence for grammatical structures before I accept them, and Lakhota "k'u" only shows two entities, even if other things are hanging around in the vicinity. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly > as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to > supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some > intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal > (third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, > not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one > where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi > -- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this > case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would > want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked > as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to > show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of > arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be > called subcategorization.) > > Pam > > Koontz John E wrote: > > >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > > > > >>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which > >>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in > >>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't > >>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is > >>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated > >>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when > >>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of > >>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject > >>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not > >>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew > >>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) > >> > >> > > > >I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be > >used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, > >by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or > >participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb > >Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If > >non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, > >statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the > >"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and > >said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 01:59:23 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:59:23 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for playing along with this, David -- I'm very glad to learn about these verbs. A modal type of thing like 'necessary' or 'maybe' doesn't really fit what I'm thinking about, precisely because you want (naturally) to put "subject" in quotes with that. But the other types are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. To give you another possibility, how about a verb that takes a mass inanimate as a subject (e.g. something that might be true of 'water' or 'sand'...)? I want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that I agree with you 100% that it's odd to say that 'give' takes indirect objects universally. I don't want you to think at all that this is what I (or, I would guess, John) was getting at. What seems to me to be true is that verbs like 'give' in languages like Lakhota (and a variety of other languages) take two objects, only one of which may show agreement on the verb -- but that both of them are syntactically objects. My suggestion that you cannot freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences (you cannot randomly have additional things "hanging around in the vicinity", in your words) was designed to show that even though the (semantic) patient (the "second object", if you like that term) does not agree with the verb, it still has a role in the sentence, and (personally) it makes it sense to me to call it an argument. (Though certainly others might define that term differently.) This seems like pretty strong structural evidence to me. I don't see anything particularly "indirect" about either of these objects; anyone who would use this term is simply trying to apply Indo-European style terminology in a case where it doesn't fit too well. The recipient is clearly the "first object". I agree with you about your 'eat' example, too. I'd say that English 'eat' may be either intransitive (as in your example) or transitive. ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even >though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim >that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of >fun. > The kind of verb you're asking for (only 3rd person singular >argument possible, not phonomenological) seems like it'd be hard to come >by in any language -- can you provide a possible example from English or >some other language you know? All I can think of would be the modal-like >verbs like iyecheca 'necessary' or nachece 'maybe', which take >propositions as their "subjects". Or maybe an intransitive that cannot >have an animate argument, so "pi" would be impossible -- e.g. do plants >'grow' or 'die' with a different verb than do people? Two minutes of >research in Ingham gives a verb "uya" for 'to grow (longer), as hair'; >back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing >up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" >which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, >but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Are there any speakers of Lakhota >out there who can comment on this word? Does it ever take a >plural "subject"? And if not, what does that tell us? The morphology of >third singular won't reveal anything about whether or not that "subject" >is an argument. > More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by >"argument". I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be >Lakhota-specific; I think you have to find criteria for grammatical >argument status one language at a time. And as John said, (I think), my >example with three arguments for the causative works only because there >are two verb stems involved. I have no objection to claims that the >logical structure of 'give' universally includes three entities, but I do >object to the hypothesis that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" >or "indirect" in all languages. Given that _k'u_ can take only two >affixes at most, and that one is the giver and the other the recipient, I >still claim that the third "entity" involved is not part of the core >argument structure of this verb in this language. > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we >eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to >eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, >and has only one argument, logic or no logic. > Maybe my structuralist upbringing is leaking through here (I >learned lingusitics first from Charles Hockett), but I need concrete >evidence for grammatical structures before I accept them, and Lakhota >"k'u" only shows two entities, even if other things are hanging around in >the vicinity. > David > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > > >>Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly >>as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to >>supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some >>intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal >>(third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, >>not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one >>where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi >>-- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this >>case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would >>want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked >>as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to >>show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of >>arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be >>called subcategorization.) >> >>Pam >> >>Koontz John E wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which >>>>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in >>>>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't >>>>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is >>>>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated >>>>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when >>>>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of >>>>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject >>>>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not >>>>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew >>>>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be >>>used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, >>>by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or >>>participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb >>>Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If >>>non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, >>>statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the >>>"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and >>>said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>Pamela Munro, >>Professor, Linguistics, UCLA >>UCLA Box 951543 >>Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 >>http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm >> >> >> >> > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sat Apr 2 07:04:09 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 02:04:09 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even > though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim > that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of > fun. Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions in the clause: wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. (I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, so if I'm wrong, tell me now!) Linda From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 07:19:14 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:19:14 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Ah, truly interesting. My own feeling is that predicate nominals in fact are not arguments (they aren't really meaningful referential entities, but rather part of the predicate) -- but this is an excellent case to discuss. Pam lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: >Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > >>Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even >>though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim >>that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of >>fun. >> >> > >Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. > >It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. hecha). >It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions in the clause: > >wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > >Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > >z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the >second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. > >(I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, so if I'm >wrong, tell me now!) > >Linda > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 15:46:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:46:26 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > I think it's been suggested that languages which > select the "higher > ranked" object (recipient over patient) be called > "primary object > languages," the primary object being the recipient if > specified or > specifiable and the patient otherwise. Matt Dryer has a paper on this but I'm uncertain whether he is author of the primary/secondary object hypothesis. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 2 17:39:53 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:39:53 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424E4772.7050500@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Linda, that is indeed an interesting suggestion. I agree with Pam that in languages like English, with heavily used copulas, predicate nominals are predicates, not arguments. Are you in a position to investigate hecha (or e) a little more? I'm not sure whether it's really a copula, or a verb of identification (is there a difference?). What happens if you're planning a prank with role substitution, and you need to say "I'm going to be you, and you be me" (note English "me", by the way)? I'm going to guess it'd have to be "niye hemacha kte, miye henicha kte" and not *hemayacha or, abosultely out, *hechicha. Actually, I bet the more likely construction would be niye (cha?) miye kte, which would confirm the "predicate" analysis -- but I don't know what might happen if you force the use of "hecha". Pam, as for "other things hanging around" not being arguments, I think I would continue to believe that happens, on the basis of prepositional "things hanging around" that are often required (but not random) as part of the semantic structure of a verb. English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the prerequisite for calling something an argument? I think the selectional restrictions on Lak. verbs (maybe in all languages) have two layers: core, which are syntactically identifiable somehow (Lak. potentially indexed on the verb if there is morphology for the task), and others that may be required or optional. The reason for making the distinction is just so you can identify what must be indexed and what cannot be indexed. Now, is that circular? I don't think so, if the goal is to specify the syntactic requirements of verbs in their lexical entries. Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a variable for individual verbs. That may not be right, or it may be that the more reasonable device would be to say that Lak. has some indirect object verbs and some two-object verbs. (The latter has been claimed for the few German verbs that take two accusatives, for example, like lehren 'teach' (Er hat mich die Sprache gelehrt) 'he taught me the language' or kosten 'cost' (das hat mich keinen Pfennig gekostet 'that didn't cost me a cent'). So to go back where this started: I'm still going to maintain that Lakhota k'u 'give' takes only two arguments, plus an obligatory adjunct. I don't think the "secondary object" idea adds anything to this problem in this language. I guess I would then have to say that hecha takes only one argument, plus an obligatory predicative nominal, and uya 'grow; sprout' (if I've got the facts right) takes one argument with certain restricted properties. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Ah, truly interesting. My own feeling is that predicate nominals in fact > are not arguments (they aren't really meaningful referential entities, > but rather part of the predicate) -- but this is an excellent case to > discuss. > > Pam > > lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > >Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > >>Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even > >>though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim > >>that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of > >>fun. > >> > >> > > > >Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. > > > >It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. > >hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal > >expressions in the clause: > > > >wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > > > >Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > > > >z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb > >in the second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. > > > >(I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, > >so if I'm wrong, tell me now!) > > > >Linda > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Apr 2 18:02:18 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:02:18 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, predicate) "to eat" is defined as: eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). So one is free to express: citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not eat up the meal I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform in). In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special endings to make it specific. E.g. Szeretek könyveket - I love books (generic direct object) Szeretem a könyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) Olvasok könyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) Olvasom (a) könyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: Szereted õt/õket - You love him, her, it/them Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek (téged/titeket)!" (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hiányoz - to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hiányzol!" - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the werb, i.e. "chi fàn" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 18:22:13 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:22:13 -0600 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. Message-ID: Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure of k?u. I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) Bob From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 21:14:21 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:14:21 -0800 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. In-Reply-To: <003b01c537b0$e55e6e30$10b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Sorry to be obscure! In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes sense that when one dines food is involved. Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can give you a Chickasaw one. In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only two of these. Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to others!) Pam R. Rankin wrote: > Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and > morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the > effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The > quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home > computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure > of k?u. > > I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what > its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this > restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be > fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might > be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? > > Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also > thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept > the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the > nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know > what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) > > Bob > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 23:04:59 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 17:04:59 -0600 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. Message-ID: Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" To: Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > Sorry to be obscure! > > In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two > nouns, e.g. "John" and > "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb > like "dine", we > can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined > bread". (Yes, you > can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do > it in a > prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's > what I mean by > "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd > phrase, but I'm just > trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You > can't freely add > "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though > semantically it makes > sense that when one dines food is involved. > > Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one > ordinary noun > phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some > with two, and some, > like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a > Lakhota example of a > verb that seems semantically as though it should take > more associated > nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for > that), but I can > give you a Chickasaw one. > > In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's > intransitive -- it is not > possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was > hunted (like 'deer') > no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like > English 'dine'.) > > Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun > phrases (neither in pre- > or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case > markers) a verb > can be associated with is its number of arguments. I > feel that this > shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not > necessarily > associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I > pointed out that in > English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or > 'eat' is transitive > (though both can also be used intransitively, as > David pointed out), > even though the English verbs inflect only for their > subject, never for > their object. As David noted, that is a > language-specific fact. So, in > contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may > have three > arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person > and number of only > two of these. > > Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't > think that whether one > accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll > leave that matter to > others!) > > Pam > > R. Rankin wrote: > >> Excuse a question from someone who has always done >> more phonology and >> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one >> of postings to the >> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan >> sentences." (The >> quote is inexact because I don't have the message >> here on my home >> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the >> argument structure >> of k?u. >> >> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what >> this means and what >> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me >> an example of this >> restriction, especially compared to some language >> (English would be >> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, >> whatever they might >> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? >> >> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something >> here. (And I'm also >> thinking about how this whole discussion might play >> out if you accept >> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. >> Then all the >> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm >> curious to know >> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) >> >> Bob >> > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 00:08:15 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:08:15 -0800 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. In-Reply-To: <001f01c537d8$6630e070$1eb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Absolutely. A verb's valence refers to its number of arguments, I'd say! R. Rankin wrote: > Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as > "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM > Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > > >> Sorry to be obscure! >> >> In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and >> "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we >> can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you >> can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a >> prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by >> "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just >> trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add >> "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes >> sense that when one dines food is involved. >> >> Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun >> phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, >> like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a >> verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated >> nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can >> give you a Chickasaw one. >> >> In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not >> possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') >> no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) >> >> Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- >> or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb >> can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this >> shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily >> associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in >> English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive >> (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), >> even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for >> their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in >> contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three >> arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only >> two of these. >> >> Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one >> accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to >> others!) >> >> Pam >> >> R. Rankin wrote: >> >>> Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and >>> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the >>> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The >>> quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home >>> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure >>> of k?u. >>> >>> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what >>> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this >>> restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be >>> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might >>> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? >>> >>> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also >>> thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept >>> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the >>> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know >>> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) >>> >>> Bob >>> >> >> -- >> Pamela Munro, >> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA >> UCLA Box 951543 >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 >> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm >> >> >> > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 02:30:21 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:30:21 -0700 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <424EDE2A.3000303@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred, In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > > > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > > > > Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > > In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > > eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > > which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > So one is free to express: > > citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > eat up the meal > > I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > in). > > In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > > In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > endings to make it specific. > E.g. > Szeretek könyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > Szeretem a könyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > Olvasok könyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > Olvasom (a) könyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > > Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > Szereted õt/õket - You love him, her, it/them > Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > (téged/titeket)!" > (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hiányoz - > to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hiányzol!" > - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > > > Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > werb, i.e. "chi fàn" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > > > So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > > > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Apr 3 02:50:27 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:50:27 -0800 Subject: transitivity of eat?? Message-ID: In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all three stems are suppletive. Dave C -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: transitivity of eat?? Alfred, In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > > > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > > > > Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > > In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > > eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > > which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > So one is free to express: > > citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > eat up the meal > > I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > in). > > In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > > In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > endings to make it specific. > E.g. > Szeretek könyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > Szeretem a könyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > Olvasok könyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > Olvasom (a) könyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > > Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > Szereted õt/õket - You love him, her, it/them > Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > (téged/titeket)!" > (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hiányoz - > to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hiányzol!" > - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > > > Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > werb, i.e. "chi fàn" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > > > So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > > > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 03:21:20 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:21:20 -0700 Subject: A test for the valence of Lakhota verbs? In-Reply-To: <424F33EF.7080604@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Yes!! Thanks, Bob and Pam, for clarifying that; I should have thought of that term myself, since I also teach about "valence". A verb's valence refers to the number of arguments it can take, but to reiterate what I was babbling about this morning, I think there are two kinds of valence: core and something else (I don't even have a name for the others). Thus I would hold that English "put" has a valence of two (I put something) in the core, but nevertheless requires a third participant in the form of a locative. Would the rest of you use valence this way, or say that "put" has a valence of three, one of which must be locative? And now I've thought of a Lakhota test for core valence: what does the wa- 'indefinite' prefix do when added to the verb? I will repeat an example I've used many times -- sorry if this is old news to anyone -- that the verb iyuNga 'to ask someone something' has a valence of three. Besides this, there is the form wiyuNga, with the wa- prefix, which means 'to inquire about'. The "wa" has replaced the "someone" argument, reducing the verb's valence from three to two. There is also a third form, wawiyuNga, meaning something like 'go around asking lots of questions; be nosy'. The second wa- has replaced the "something" argument of the original verb, and now we're down to an intransitive. So the test would be: what (besides 'I gave it to him/her') does "wak'u" mean? Does "wa-" delete the recipient and leave the other object, perhaps something like 'donate (something)'? Or does it delete the equivalent of the English direct object and mean 'I gifted him/her'? And is there a "wawak'u" meaning something like 'be generous' or 'give stuff to people'? If so, then I will concede defeat and admit that _k'u_ has three arguments; if not, I think I may have found an objective argument for the position I've been trying to justify. Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (I assume that's his spelling of wawichak'u). If that's what I think it, is, then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed on the verb. I hope there is a speaker on the list with enough patience to read through this and help us. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Absolutely. A verb's valence refers to its number of arguments, I'd say! > > R. Rankin wrote: > > > Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as > > "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM > > Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > > > > > >> Sorry to be obscure! > >> > >> In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and > >> "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we > >> can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you > >> can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a > >> prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by > >> "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just > >> trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add > >> "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes > >> sense that when one dines food is involved. > >> > >> Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun > >> phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, > >> like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a > >> verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated > >> nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can > >> give you a Chickasaw one. > >> > >> In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not > >> possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') > >> no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) > >> > >> Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- > >> or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb > >> can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this > >> shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily > >> associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in > >> English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive > >> (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), > >> even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for > >> their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in > >> contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three > >> arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only > >> two of these. > >> > >> Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one > >> accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to > >> others!) > >> > >> Pam > >> > >> R. Rankin wrote: > >> > >>> Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and > >>> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the > >>> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The > >>> quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home > >>> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure > >>> of k?u. > >>> > >>> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what > >>> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this > >>> restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be > >>> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might > >>> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? > >>> > >>> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also > >>> thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept > >>> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the > >>> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know > >>> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) > >>> > >>> Bob > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Pamela Munro, > >> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > >> UCLA Box 951543 > >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > >> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 03:32:10 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:32:10 -0800 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <24638163.1112496627554.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Chickasaw (and most other Muskogean) also has two 'eat' verbs, intransitive impa and transitive apa. (These look similar, but there is no regular relationship between them.) The first has one arguments, the second two. It's interesting how common this is! (I'm not completely sure what you mean by a "covert object", David. Is this an object that can appear if the speaker wishes to specify it? A non-agreeing object, like the patient of 'give'? Or a semantically implied object, if I can use that term, like what is eaten with English 'dine'?) Pam david costa wrote: >In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that >takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat >him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all >three stems are suppletive. > >Dave C > >-----Original Message----- >From: ROOD DAVID S >Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: transitivity of eat?? > > >Alfred, > In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an >object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call >people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) >with the intransitive verb. > An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. >Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? > I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. > David > > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > >On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > > > >>>I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we >>> >>> >>eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to >>eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, >>and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << >> >> >> >>Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most >>Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view >>on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" >>being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but >>kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) >> >>In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, >>predicate) "to eat" is defined as: >> >>eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 >> >>which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an >>indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). >>So one is free to express: >> >>citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed >>(the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some >>cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) >>mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) >>le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice >>[zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not >>eat up the meal >> >>I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all >>arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are >>defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that >>this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform >>in). >> >>In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word >>sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to >>(a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by >>context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation >>of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). >> >>In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be >>transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special >>endings to make it specific. >>E.g. >>Szeretek könyveket - I love books (generic direct object) >>Szeretem a könyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) >>Olvasok könyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) >>Olvasom (a) könyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) >> >>Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: >>Szereted õt/õket - You love him, her, it/them >>Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me >>So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" >>with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the >>expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek >>(téged/titeket)!" >>(These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hiányoz - >>to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hiányzol!" >>- you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) >> >> >>Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct >>object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the >>werb, i.e. "chi fàn" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). >> >> >>So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's >>grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in >>"we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( >> >> >> >> >>Alfred >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 03:39:54 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:39:54 -0800 Subject: A test for the valence of Lakhota verbs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While 'put' requires a locative, it's an interesting question whether everyone will call that locative an argument, since it is oblique. I like your notion of "core valence" vs. some-other-kind-of valence. But in fact I'd say that the patient of Lakhota 'give' is part of core valence, even though it does not agree, while the locative with 'put', though required, seems less argument-like (to moi). The wa- test is very interesting! I'll be interested to hear how this comes out. Pam ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Yes!! Thanks, Bob and Pam, for clarifying that; I should have thought of >that term myself, since I also teach about "valence". A verb's valence >refers to the number of arguments it can take, but to reiterate what I was >babbling about this morning, I think there are two kinds of valence: core >and something else (I don't even have a name for the others). Thus I would >hold that English "put" has a valence of two (I put something) in the >core, but nevertheless requires a third participant in the form of a >locative. Would the rest of you use valence this way, or say that "put" >has a valence of three, one of which must be locative? > And now I've thought of a Lakhota test for core valence: what does >the wa- 'indefinite' prefix do when added to the verb? I will repeat an >example I've used many times -- sorry if this is old news to anyone -- >that the verb iyuNga 'to ask someone something' has a valence of three. >Besides this, there is the form wiyuNga, with the wa- prefix, which means >'to inquire about'. The "wa" has replaced the "someone" argument, >reducing the verb's valence from three to two. There is also a third >form, wawiyuNga, meaning something like 'go around asking lots of >questions; be nosy'. The second wa- has replaced the "something" argument >of the original verb, and now we're down to an intransitive. > So the test would be: what (besides 'I gave it to him/her') does >"wak'u" mean? Does "wa-" delete the recipient and leave the other object, >perhaps something like 'donate (something)'? Or does it delete the >equivalent of the English direct object and mean 'I gifted him/her'? And >is there a "wawak'u" meaning something like 'be generous' or 'give stuff >to people'? If so, then I will concede defeat and admit that +AF8-k'u+AF8- has >three arguments; if not, I think I may have found an objective argument >for the position I've been trying to justify. > Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to >people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in >Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (I >assume that's his spelling of wawichak'u). If that's what I think it, is, >then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic >patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for >the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed >on the verb. > I hope there is a speaker on the list with enough patience to read >through this and help us. > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 03:55:52 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:55:52 -0700 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <424F63BA.5090605@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Sorry, Pam, I was using "covert" in a non-technical way to mean the supposed object that some people (even authors of intro lingusitics textbooks) claim is ALWAYS there with 'eat'. I don't think most people would claim that 'dine' has such an object, ever. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Chickasaw (and most other Muskogean) also has two 'eat' verbs, > intransitive impa and transitive apa. (These look similar, but there is > no regular relationship between them.) The first has one arguments, the > second two. It's interesting how common this is! > > (I'm not completely sure what you mean by a "covert object", David. Is > this an object that can appear if the speaker wishes to specify it? A > non-agreeing object, like the patient of 'give'? Or a semantically > implied object, if I can use that term, like what is eaten with English > 'dine'?) > > Pam > > david costa wrote: > > >In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that > >takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat > >him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all > >three stems are suppletive. > > > >Dave C > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ROOD DAVID S > >Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM > >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >Subject: transitivity of eat?? > > > > > >Alfred, > > In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an > >object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call > >people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) > >with the intransitive verb. > > An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. > >Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? > > I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. > > David > > > > > >David S. Rood > >Dept. of Linguistics > >Univ. of Colorado > >295 UCB > >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > >USA > >rood at colorado.edu > > > >On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T�ting" wrote: > > > > > > > >>>I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > >>> > >>> > >>eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > >>eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > >>and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > >> > >> > >> > >>Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > >>Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > >>on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > >>being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > >>kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > >> > >>In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > >>predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > >> > >>eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > >> > >>which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > >>indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > >>So one is free to express: > >> > >>citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > >>(the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > >>cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > >>mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > >>le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > >>[zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > >>eat up the meal > >> > >>I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > >>arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > >>defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > >>this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > >>in). > >> > >>In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > >>sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > >>(a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > >>context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > >>of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > >> > >>In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > >>transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > >>endings to make it specific. > >>E.g. > >>Szeretek k�nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > >>Szeretem a k�nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > >>Olvasok k�nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > >>Olvasom (a) k�nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > >> > >>Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > >>Szereted �t/�ket - You love him, her, it/them > >>Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > >>So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > >>with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > >>expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > >>(t�ged/titeket)!" > >>(These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi�nyoz - > >>to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi�nyzol!" > >>- you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > >> > >> > >>Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > >>object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > >>werb, i.e. "chi f�n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > >> > >> > >>So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > >>grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > >>"we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Alfred > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Apr 3 10:44:53 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:44:53 +0200 Subject: transitivity with eat/argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (David) In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. << David (and all participants of this thread), thanks for your highly interesting contributions that actually are shedding light on this quite complicated issue. As for 'dine' (German: 'dinieren'), I don't think so! Same with German 'kneipen' ('Korpsstudenten'-Slang), 'bechern', 'zechen' - to booze. BTW, the 'to put' example's interesting: I don't think that the locative is 'core' argument here. What's about a verb 'put in/on/out etc.'? In German 'hineinlegen' (hinein legen?, ~ geben/tun), e.g. "Ich lege es hinein" (I put it in): uttering smth. like this, one, of course, does have smth. locative in mind, yet I don't think the 'place' is anything more than 'semantic background'. This seems to hold even more for verbs like 'einlegen' (e.g. a sheet of paper into a book/pile of papers etc. or gherkins/mixed pickles into a jar etc.): In a sentence like "Ich lege Gurken ein" the vessel (jar/glass) is about as 'immanent' as 'sunka (wakan)' in Lak. sentences of the kind "Wanna mitawa kin tehiya waku welo" - Now I've come home with my (horse) with great difficulty - or "Tawa kin hena luzahanpi" - Their (horses) are fast, and still, the locative doesn't appear to be an argument. Thanks again. Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Apr 3 13:01:49 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 15:01:49 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (David) Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (...). If that's what I think it, is, then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed on the verb. << This is a very nice example, yet, I seem to be a bit thick-witted - sorry! You create a hypothetical model of k'u -> wak'u -> wawak'u (with the last one kind of meaning ?wawa-ma-k'u - I'm a giver of donations/I'm big-hearted/generous) to gain evidence that with two valences reduced and one still existent, the initial _k'u_ must have had three valences in total, okay? The one still left is pointing to the 'subject' (semantically speaking, the 'giver'), so one of the two other valences must have been that of the 'receiver'. Now, you actually find a somewhat different form with (almost) exactly this 'selbri' (argument structure), albeit one _wa-_ 'replaced' by _-wica-_ [wicha'] (which doesn't matter since - referring to humans - _-wica-_ has the same 'generic' function as _wa-_). That exactly was what we were looking for in order to give evidence for three markable arguments of the verb _k'u_. Shouldn't we be happy?! :)) (BTW, I'd still be eager to hear your opinions on B. Ingham's examples of "I gave you to them (in marriage)" etc.) Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 3 15:44:24 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:44:24 -0500 Subject: Valence of 'to place', or what is obliqueness? Message-ID: Lindsey Whaley, author of the typology textbook I've been teaching from, seems happy calling 'to place, put' trivalent. My students have occasionally wondered whether {locative} is equi-valent with {subj.} or {obj., and I have to confess I've never been able to answer the question even to my own satisfaction. You can argue from relative frequency of required locative arguments, in which case you probably feel that locatives are highly questionable as equal participants. Or you can argue from a more Boasian point of view that, while numbers favor having just 3 "core" valencies, languages can be quite unpredictable, and sometimes locatives must be admitted. Like David, I began my career as a Bloomfieldian -- more or less -- and I tend to favor the idea that "obliqueness" is a state of mind. And in some languages it may have to be part of the core. But maybe I just enjoy being iconoclastic. The origin of "oblique" is interestingly trivial. For many classical grammarians the nominative {subject} case was the "casus rectus" and was represented by a vertical line on a piece of paper (rectus = upright). The remaining cases were then represented by other lines slanting to the baseline at different degrees of inclination, so that the whole diagram was like looking down onto half of a pie that has been cut into slices. In other words, the lines representing the other cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and 'oblique cases'. In the Classical scheme of things, some cases were more 'oblique' than others, of course. But is there really a principled difference -- a principled dividing line -- among them? It's true that numerically some cases are more common than others, but none is necessarliy universal. How 'universal' is the core, really? Bob ----- Original Message ----- > BTW, the 'to put' example's interesting: I don't > think that the locative is 'core' argument here. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 3 15:54:17 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:54:17 -0500 Subject: Oops. Message-ID: > In other words, the lines representing the other > cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus > rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the > angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and > 'oblique cases'. I see that ADJ.-DET. relationships are changing in my 66 year-old English. The above should read: "with the vertical casus rectus", NOT "with vertical the casus rectus" Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Apr 3 23:54:04 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:54:04 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > can you provide a possible example from English or some other language > you know? The only thing I can think of is epche 'I think' (Boas & Deloria 1941:102), but that a first person singular only, and the -p- is clearly pronominal, at least in comparative terms. Off hand, the patterns of defective verb I can recall from anywhere are all matters of missing tense/aspect forms or missing persons. I checked for some tace of this possibility in Bruce Ingham's Laokota Grammar without finding anything, either. > back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing > up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" > which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, > but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Sounds like a parallel of or calque from the English pattern "whence springs ..." I think this may have more to do with 'spring' in the sense of origin than of leaping, though it's ambiguous in Emglish. > More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by > "argument". Yes - it seems like this is more a matter of difference in terminology than a disagreeement on phenomena. > I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be Lakhota-specific; I > think you have to find criteria for grammatical argument status one > language at a time. My impression is that the terminological issue would apply across Siouan, including the relatively different Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern branches, but I wouldn't care to clain that treatment of non-indexed arguments (or whateve rthe term ought to be) would be the same. On the other hand, I have the impression that non-indexed arguments arise in non-Siouan languages in the area, including Algonquian and Muskogean. > I have no objection to claims that the logical structure of 'give' > universally includes three entities, but I do object to the hypothesis > that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" or "indirect" in all > languages. Agreed. This definitely doesn't seem to work for Dakotan or Dhegiha. > Given that _k'u_ can take only two affixes at most, and that > one is the giver and the other the recipient, I still claim that the > third "entity" involved is not part of the core argument structure of > this verb in this language. Everything here turns on the definition of core argument. I don't know of any arguments that the patient of k?u (or ?i, in OP) is core beyond the fact that it can occur, e.g., JOD 1890:75.11-12 hiN, s^ikkaN', wiN aNdha?i= tte= daN oh bro-wif one (raccoon) you give me IRREALIS CONTINGENT Oh! sister-in-law, would you give me one (of the raccons)? JOD 1890:87.15 z^iNdhe'=ha, s^aN'ge wiN wi?i' eBro VOC horse a I give you Brother, I am giving you a horse. In both cases, of course, the recipient is the form indexes with what I usually call the the patient marker: aN 'me' in the first case, and wi (like Da c^hi) indexes first person agent and second person patient. By the way, I've just noticed OP gi'?i 'to give back'~ > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. I don't know if I'd say that English 'eat' is always transitive. I sort of assume it can be either, and is intransitive if there is no expressed object (unless gapping or something like it applies). I'm not so sure about OP dhathe or Dakota yuta. They might always be transitive. Looking for OP ?i 'give' wihtout expressed non-indexed patients, I've found JOD 1890:109.19-110.1 wappe'=khe iN'was^ta=m=az^i e'=d=e=gaN s^aN wi?i'= tta=miNkhe ha weapon the I cannot spare it "but" yet I give you it IRR AUX DEC I can't spare the weapon, but I will give it to you. Although wi?i' agrees with the recipient, it appears to be possible to gap the patient 'the weapon' across the two clauses. That is, there's nothing explicit in the verb that indicates the patient 'it', and there's no independent form indicating it either. As far as the conjunction "but" here, there are a variety of forms in e'=de that Dorsey renders "but," this one being e'=de plus e'gaN, the subordinating conjunction, which works somewhat like a conjunct mode in Algonquian, I think. Usually Dorsey translates egaN as "having." I think indicates that the preceding thing renders the next one surprising. It's more like English 'though' than English 'but'. Maybe a better parallel in construction would be: Though being unable to spare the weapon, yet I will give you it. Interestingly, I would much prefer to say 'give it to you' in English, perhaps because the focus here is clearly the weapon. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Apr 3 23:58:36 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:58:36 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DFC7B.1000406@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > I want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that I agree with you 100% that it's > odd to say that 'give' takes indirect objects universally. I don't want > you to think at all that this is what I (or, I would guess, John) was > getting at. Definitely not. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 00:17:14 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:17:14 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. > hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions > in the clause: > > wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > > Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > > z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the > second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. I agree with you, anyway. This seems to me to be rather different from the constructions you get in Omaha-Ponca, like JOD 1890:18.8 wanaN'ghi dhidhi'Nge=tta=i= the spirit you lack IRR PL EVID You will be without souls JOD 1890:495.9 ni'kkas^iNga=ama iNt?a= i people the me-died PL Relatives of mine have died but the general construction is similar - nouns are critically present that are not recognized in the verbs by indexing. As far as I know, these verbs never take more than one index, and it always the experiencer of the situation. Note, however, that "people" is marked as a subject (or as a proximate plural, anyway) in the second case, and that the verb is plural. Although we tend to think of plural marking as part of the same package as person marking, because in so many languages it is, I'm not sure it's at the same thing in Siouan languages. I believe the plural marking here (and eligibility for a proximate article, something only Dhegiha can offer as a diagnostic in the Siouan) show that 'the person who died' is in some sense an argument, though only eligible for singular/plural indexing, and not for person indexing. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 05:30:35 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 23:30:35 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the > second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. It occurs to me that you could consider z^e (or he) as indexing the second argument. Something similar occurs in verbs of speaking and thinking. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 06:20:18 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:20:18 -0600 Subject: Argument Terminolog Message-ID: Summarizing the argument terminology I've noticed: Core Core Not Core Indexed in Verb Not Indexed Not Indexed core argument argument adjunct participant participant Does anyone want to correct or augment this? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 07:16:35 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:16:35 -0600 Subject: Omaha-Ponca Wa + 'give' Message-ID: I'm not sure this much help! The problem is that David Rood's wa-test has some issues outside of Dakotan, because something close to homophonous with wa- is used for the third person plural instead of wic^ha-. I tend to think that Dakotan has basically innovated wic^ha- as a sort of clarification or replacement of this third person animate plural usage. An incorporated noun has replaced a sort of pro-incorporated noun, if we regard wa- as a specific element meaning "the object is indefinite or unspecified" (often extended to third person plural) rather than as a more abstract "valence reducer." It appears that OMaha-Ponca doesn't use wa- as a non-specific object with ?i. Instead, you can omit any reference to a nominal patient and get what ammounts to a wa-effect. If wa- is actually present it seems to refer to third person plural recipients. However, it's often hard to tell. I don't find any examples with two wa's, where one might be an indefinite. Hypothetically, one doesn't need wa to omit a non-indexed argument? First off, there are cases where the thing given is a noun and the wa in the verb presumably is a third person plural recipient. I've picked examples in which wa- seems to clearly refer to the recipients, because the patient is singular. In many cases the patients and recipients are both plural and it would be hard to tell what wa- referred to (though wa- is not normally present if the object is given as a noun). JOD 1890:119.16 maNs^tiN'ge=dhaNkha wiN wa?i= ga rabbit the (pl) one give them IMP give (each of) them one of the rabbits JOD 1890:85.20 ttakkaN' s^i e'=kkina wa?i= bi=ama sinew again that many each they gave them PL QUOTE One oddball noticed in which wa- occurs with a noun-patient and a singular recipient. JOD 1890:279.10 hiNbe'= dhaN wa?u'z^iNga wa?i'= dhaN moccasins the old woman gave him the the moccasins which the old woman had given him In the following example I have the impression, from comparing the two clauses, that wa- refers to the beneficiaries, e.g., equates to Dakotan wic^ha-, e.g., I-to_them-gave. In other words, simply omitting references to nominal patients (things given) suffices to make them indefinite. Note that it is normal for a- 'first person agent' (like Dakotan wa-) to precede wa- (any wa-) in Dhegiha. JOD 1890:439.9-10 gaN aN?i=i e'gaN, wi'=s^ti e'adhadha awa'?i and they gave to me HAVING I too in various directions I gave And, they having given to me, I also gave things to various ones Note no wa- with 'they gave to me', suggesting the one with 'I have to them' is the recipient. Dorsey translates this, "As they had given something to me, I, too, gave presents all around." An ambivalent example in which I think wa- refers to the recipients, i.e., equates to wic^ha- because the recipients are clearly specified and seem to require indexing. JOD 1890:504.11-12 ukki'tte dhe s^aaN'= ama athi=i ha. nation this Dakotas the they-arrived-here DEC s^aN'ge wa'bdhiN e'=de waN'gidhe awa'?i. horses I had them "but" all I gave (to) them The Dakotas visited this nation. Though I had horses, I gave them all to them. Also ambiguous, but I think wa- is the recipients, because they are clearly specified. JOD 1890:644.15-16 ni'kkas^iNga waxpa'ni=s^te awa'?i= naN= maN person poor "so-ever" I gave to them HABIT I-AUX I used to give things to any poor person. In this cases the wa- is clearly the recipients, since the patient is singular and specific. JOD 1890:635.5 awa'?i= m=az^i I give it to them I not I did not give it to them Another fairly clear example, involving gapping: JOD 1890:635.6 maN'zeska wi'tta gdhe'ba ithe'=wikhidhe e'de, money mine ten I put it awway for you though witta'haN t?e', a'daN awa?i. my wifbro he died therefore I gave (it) to them I had saved ten dollars for you, but my wife's brother died, so I gave it to them (the family). John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 07:38:39 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:38:39 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put > something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that > verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the > prerequisite for calling something an argument? My inclination on this is that a required locative is indeed an argument, while an optional one is not. I think this amounts to Filmore's distinction of between central and peripheral obliques. This is the point at which many languages incorporate the adposition into the verb. I think it's also the one at which Siouan languages often allow indexing of the argument governed by a locative prefix, e.g., JOD 1890:61.6 aNdhaNna?u (i'..na?u 'pass close to') i-aN -na?u pass close to me (IMP) JOD 1890:165.11 aNdhaNdhikkaN (i'..kkaN 'to contend with') aN-i-dhi-kkaN we contend with you However, for what it's worth, locations don't seem to be mandatory with OP 'to put' forms, which may be one reason they have the alternate reading 'to put away'. > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and > does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely > marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. It was definitely Dryer's article I was remembering: DRYER, MATTHEW S. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62.808.45 (1986). > I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology > of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a > variable for individual verbs. ... That's what I recall, too. From wablenica at mail.ru Mon Apr 4 07:51:42 2005 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Constantine Chmielnicki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:51:42 +0400 Subject: thi + locative Message-ID: We could range the "arguments" of the verbs according to ability to take pron. affixes, detrasitivizing/absolutizing plugs (wa-/wicha-), and being obligatory/optional 1. +pron, +detr, +oblig - direct objects in vt, (yutA) indirect objects (recipients) (k'u) 2. -pron, +detr, +oblig - direct objects in vd (k'u) 3. -pron, -detr, +oblig - "obliques" in thi (locative), etuNwAN (direction), iyA (language - Lakxot(a)-, was^icu-, txok(a)-; or manner - loudly, slowly, etc.) 4. -pron, -detr, -oblig - adverbials of time, manner, or location in most verbs. Notes and questions. 1. thi requires locative, but in wathi kiN - "where I live; my home" it seemingly doesn't. How can this be explained? 2. what can be said about compounding verbs with some postpositions (as in Regina Pustet's article), when pronouns from the postpositional phrase shift to the verb, like e'l-mahi` ? 2. e'tuNwAN is used with adverbials of direction (ihukhul, waNkatuya, maxpiya ekta, NP el) in old texts but it looks that in modern usage it tends to do without them: ematuNwaN po! "look at me!" instead of el ematuNwaN po!. Thank you. Constantine. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 13:55:48 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 06:55:48 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for joining the discussion so late, but my weekend was rather busy. I have checked my grammar files, and in there the next-best thing to the hypothetical wawak'u etc. structures David would like to explore are the following examples: (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' However, in all three cases, a potentially valence-increasing locative prefix o- is present, which may explain the possibility of adding the direct object (patient) wa- 'things' to the verb, which also carries person affixes for the indirect object (dative/benefactive/recipient). In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This time we're looking at a bare k'u-verb which is inflected for both patient and recipient (and agent, of course). As for the valence issue, I recommend viewing things systematically from two angles: structure and semantics. On the structural side, a criterion that works very nicely is determining whether an argument (at least in non-passive/antipassive constructions) is omissible or not. Anything that's not omissible is part of the valence of a given verb. The "problem" here is that in some cases, arguments marked by obliques will end up in the valence frame. Locatives in 'put' and similar verbs are an example. Also the 'of'-phrase in 'devoid of'. You can't use this adjective without adding the of-phrase. Personally, I don't consider this a serious problem, so I would classify 'devoid' as transitive. There is literature on this, including some passages in my 2003 book on copulas. This brings us to the second criterion which has probably been used to define valence much more often, that of the semantics and other properties of the case markers involved. A "well-behaved" argument which is part of the valence frame of some verb better be either a subject/agent, direct object/patient, or at least an indirect object/benefactive, right? And in most cases, probably globally, the arguments which are "inside" valence on the omissibility criterion will function to code these three semantic/syntactic/whatever roles. But there are exceptions, as examples like 'devoid' show. Regina Koontz John E wrote:On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put > something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that > verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the > prerequisite for calling something an argument? My inclination on this is that a required locative is indeed an argument, while an optional one is not. I think this amounts to Filmore's distinction of between central and peripheral obliques. This is the point at which many languages incorporate the adposition into the verb. I think it's also the one at which Siouan languages often allow indexing of the argument governed by a locative prefix, e.g., JOD 1890:61.6 aNdhaNna?u (i'..na?u 'pass close to') i-aN -na?u pass close to me (IMP) JOD 1890:165.11 aNdhaNdhikkaN (i'..kkaN 'to contend with') aN-i-dhi-kkaN we contend with you However, for what it's worth, locations don't seem to be mandatory with OP 'to put' forms, which may be one reason they have the alternate reading 'to put away'. > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and > does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely > marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. It was definitely Dryer's article I was remembering: DRYER, MATTHEW S. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62.808.45 (1986). > I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology > of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a > variable for individual verbs. ... That's what I recall, too. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Apr 4 18:52:51 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:52:51 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050404135548.26790.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Regina, I'd like to ask question about the following part of you message: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' > (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Can you explain why you analyze it as 'things'? Thank you Jan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 19:29:10 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:29:10 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <001101c53947$815faf00$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > > I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is > a contraction of wo'yute 'food' > (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 19:41:16 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:41:16 -0600 Subject: wichamak'u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050404135548.26790.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: > > (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This is very like the example Linda earlier reported that her Assiniboine consultant gave once, but now rejects. The difference is that the patient and recipient are reversed: LC > [*]pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens'" Of course, the ranking of kittens is lower, presumably, than spouse's family, and these are different dialects, but I'm still wondering if what we might have is the possibility of both indexes, but with low felicity. Or is it English influence, etc.? I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural, for all of which it might still be English influence, if the text was modern, which I no longer recall, though I think it was. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Apr 4 21:09:33 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:09:33 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: I've never seen anything like that in the languages I've looked at. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:29 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: argument structure k'u etc. On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > > I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a > contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 21:12:20 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:12:20 -0600 Subject: Dative Marking and the Primary Argument Language Type In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can > and does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. > obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. I have > somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology of > systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a variable > for individual verbs. This may be one of those places where I know just enough to be dangerous, so please correct me if this is wrong! I had the impression that the dative construction in Lakota (and Omaha-Ponca and so on) amounted to a device for permitting a recipient-object to occur with a verb that, in underived, non-dative form, agreed with its patient-object. In effect, the dative marker is a way of deriving a ditransitive verb from a mono-transitive one. And ditransitive verbs in primary object languages have to agree with the recipient-object. You can also think of it as a way of marking the case of the primary object as dative. You can a;sp think of it as a requirement to raise the expressed possesor of an object to object. There are other ways it could be done, but "dative marking" in the verb is the mechanism in most Siouan languages. I tend to think that some mechanism like this is more or less essential in a primary object language in which the primary object is indexed in the verb. Anyway, from this perspective I'm not sure I would want to describe the dative marker as way to "show secondary argument (i.e. obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries." Actually, I think it substitutes them for the patient-object as primary arguments." The recipient does kidnap the patient indexing property, right? (This may be where I am confused.) So, it seems to me that the old primary argument that is now secondary, which is as it should be relative to a recipient in a primary argument language. I guess we can't call the patient object oblique, since oblique (or indirect) is a term for direct object systems. Along these lines, I don't believe there is any way in Lakota or Omaha-Ponca to include a recipient-object in a mono-transitive verb clause. So, unlike English, you can't say 'give x to y' but only 'give y x'. Nor is there any way in Omaha-Ponca that I can see to form a mono-transitive from a ditransitive, e.g., to convert ?i 'give' into a verb that agrees with the patient-object and doesn't mention the recipient-object or demotes it to an adpositional form like 'to y' in 'give x to y'. It may be possible to do something along those lines with wa- in Lakota but I wasn't clear on the details. It looked to me like this was an area where Omaha-Ponca and Lakota went different ways. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 23:10:47 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:10:47 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <001101c53947$815faf00$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: Hi Jan: I have doubts about the woyute hypothesis because of the complexity of the reduction that would be required here -- John just made that point. So I'd like to ask you back: why should these forms originate in woyute rather than in wa-o- 'non-specific patient + locative prefix'? There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference in Lakota which figure as affixes, like ho- 'camp circle' or wi- 'woman'. These elements can be used as incorporated nouns, just like you assume wo- is used in my examples. But I've never heard of a wo- affix which serves as a kind of placeholder for woyute 'food'. I don't have access to a Buechel dictionary right now, maybe he has some info on that, but even then, I'd still challenge the woyute analysis. Best, Regina "Jan F. Ullrich" wrote: Hi Regina, I'd like to ask question about the following part of you message: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' > (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Can you explain why you analyze it as 'things'? Thank you Jan --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 23:14:06 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:14:06 -0700 Subject: wichamak'u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' > I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural. The grammaticality of the example has, in the meantime, been confirmed by an additional speaker. Regina Koontz John E wrote: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: > > (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This is very like the example Linda earlier reported that her Assiniboine consultant gave once, but now rejects. The difference is that the patient and recipient are reversed: LC > [*]pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens'" Of course, the ranking of kittens is lower, presumably, than spouse's family, and these are different dialects, but I'm still wondering if what we might have is the possibility of both indexes, but with low felicity. Or is it English influence, etc.? I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural, for all of which it might still be English influence, if the text was modern, which I no longer recall, though I think it was. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 07:35:44 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:35:44 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). << I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea behind _wok'u_. Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 08:00:57 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:00:57 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: Addendum: Still one thought striking me, as a sidenote. The Lakota verb _(w)ok'u_ perfectly parallels the German verb 'eingeben' (of medicine). 'einnehmen' - take medicine/pills. Alfred From jfu at centrum.cz Tue Apr 5 08:29:13 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:29:13 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050404231047.14996.qmail@web54610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: REGINA PUSTET wrote: > There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference in Lakota > which figure as affixes, like ho- 'camp circle' or wi- 'woman'. > These elements can be used as incorporated nouns, just like you assume wo- is used in my examples. This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I run into it again, this time I would keep record. Thank you for the discussion Jan From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Apr 5 13:08:46 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:08:46 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <42523FD0.9030901@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: wok'u is on p. 604 of Buechel, 'to give foot do; to lend' also gives wol "cont. of wota", so you're right on target with that one, Alfred. BTW: Asb also has wok'u. Linda > > I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ > giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence > "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). > With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. > BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and > additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: > "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea > behind _wok'u_. > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 16:41:10 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:41:10 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. I see where Jan's argument originates now, but, like Regina and others, I still question whether wo- could be a reduced woyute. Alfred's *wol or perhaps woyul might be a better bet. While Deloria's data have to be considered correct, I don't think her and Boas' _interpretations_ of her data are always right. While writing about positional verbs, I ran across the claim in B&D that the irregular verb forms maNka 'I sat', naNka 'you sat' (from yaNkA 'be sitting') have pronominal allomorphs that show these verbs have become stative (or 'neutral'/'passive', whatever). But this is a mistake. The pronominals m- and n- here are not allomorphs of ma- and ni- but historically regular variants of *w(a)- and *y(a)- respectively. It's easy to see how a native speaker could reanalyze these as stative allomorphs, but historically it's inaccurate. One of the oldest examples of an incorporated noun must surely be ?uN(k)- '1st person inclusive'. Given various forms of this in other Siouan languages like waNk- (Tutelo), wa:Ng- (Hochunk), aN(k)- (Dhegiha), etc., it almost certainly represents an incorporated form of proto-Siouan *wa:NkE or *wu:NkE 'man, person' (there are nearly exact parallels with modern French "on" 'we'). But even here the root-final -k is preserved contextually in most of the languages. So I think most nouns don't undergo all that much phonological truncation when incorporated. Mostly they only lose -E or -A and then the root-final consonant undergoes some mutation. Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 16:52:43 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:52:43 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea behind _wok'u_. <<<< > wok'u is on p. 604 of Buechel, 'to give food to; to lend' also gives wol "cont. of wota", so you're right on target with that one, Alfred. BTW: Asb also has wok'u. << Linda, thanks for the hint: in my copy of B., it's p. 391 where I - now - found it. Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Apr 5 17:12:38 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:12:38 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233C3B@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I agree with the point about *interpretation* of data in B&D. I don't include wo- 'food' in my discussion of "noun classifiers" (which I call "truncated nouns") because, in fact, it is not a truncated noun, like the others in the list; nor are its derivatives nouns, but verbs, so I see it as something unique, a truncated verb (wa + yuta > wota > wo-) with specialized meaning. BTW, Assiniboione has won-, cognate to Lak. wol-, by what I have labeled a process of coda nasalization. Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those > "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from > but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. > > I see where Jan's argument originates now, but, like Regina and others, > I still question whether wo- could be a reduced woyute. Alfred's *wol > or perhaps woyul might be a better bet. While Deloria's data have to be > considered correct, I don't think her and Boas' _interpretations_ of her > data are always right. > > While writing about positional verbs, I ran across the claim in B&D that > the irregular verb forms maNka 'I sat', naNka 'you sat' (from yaNkA 'be > sitting') have pronominal allomorphs that show these verbs have become > stative (or 'neutral'/'passive', whatever). But this is a mistake. The > pronominals m- and n- here are not allomorphs of ma- and ni- but > historically regular variants of *w(a)- and *y(a)- respectively. It's > easy to see how a native speaker could reanalyze these as stative > allomorphs, but historically it's inaccurate. > > One of the oldest examples of an incorporated noun must surely be > ?uN(k)- '1st person inclusive'. Given various forms of this in other > Siouan languages like waNk- (Tutelo), wa:Ng- (Hochunk), aN(k)- > (Dhegiha), etc., it almost certainly represents an incorporated form of > proto-Siouan *wa:NkE or *wu:NkE 'man, person' (there are nearly exact > parallels with modern French "on" 'we'). But even here the root-final > -k is preserved contextually in most of the languages. So I think most > nouns don't undergo all that much phonological truncation when > incorporated. Mostly they only lose -E or -A and then the root-final > consonant undergoes some mutation. > > Bob > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 17:51:07 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:51:07 -0600 Subject: Argument Terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Summarizing and simplifying neutral argument terminology (revised) Indexed in Verb Not Indexed in Verb indexed argument unindexed argument non-argument If an argument was indexed in some specific way this could be specified, e.g., number-indexed argument (as opposed to a pronominally-indexed argument). I think one could reasonably assume that pronominally-indexed was the default form of indexing, but it appears that one can't assume that an indexed argument is the default form of argument at present, though I think that this has been trued historically of Siouanist usage. I only started thinking of unindexed arguments as arguments when I began trying to produce a classification of verbs that handled OP ?i 'give', dhiNge 'to lack' and git?e 'one's own to be dead', especially the first and last. I'll have admit that before that I hadn't really noticed the additional unindexed arguments. Because there are people using argument to mean both indexed argument and either indexed or unindexed argument, it's probably a good idea to clarify what you mean at present, and whether you distinguish between unindexed arguments and non-arguments. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 17:54:18 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:54:18 -0600 Subject: wok?u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <425245B9.1080607@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: > The Lakota verb _(w)ok'u_ perfectly parallels the German verb 'eingeben' > (of medicine). 'einnehmen' - take medicine/pills. Which resembles English 'take internally' as in 'Not to be taken internally'. For food a closer parallel might be 'partake of'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 18:09:42 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:09:42 -0600 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <001401c539b9$8cdb4340$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: RP> There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference JU> This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria > actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention > above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source > until I made a search for it. When I saw Regina's comment I got to thinking I might have seen something like wo = woyuta in Boas & Deloria, but I hadn't gotten around to checking it yet. Since we have the contracted form wota, I suppose one could argue that wo- as a classificatory prefix is from wol-, which seem plausible. For example, Dakota speakers of the previous century - the century before last I guess, now - seemed to find it plausible that Thi(N)thuN(waN) 'Teton' should be derived from thiNta + thuNwaN, presumably via thiNl-thuNwaN [thiNnthuN(w)aN]. Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate inflection of yuta (if I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 haac^, A2 raac^, A3 ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - PMVS *ru(u)t, or perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has been transferred into Winnebago. I hope I'm getting the final vowel of yuta correct in the various forms above! However, all this aside, I still suspect wok?u < wa-o-k?u. It seems to have a sort of partitive sense. JU> I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- > seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen > something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I > run into it again, this time I would keep record. If there are other examples of this it would certainly be interesting. I seem to recall hearing that there are sometimes drastic simplications in Algonquian compounds. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 18:29:12 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:29:12 -0600 Subject: Classificatory Compounds and Theme Form (RE: argument ....) In-Reply-To: <1112721158.4252c7067fc2a@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I agree with the point about *interpretation* of data in B&D. I don't > include wo- 'food' in my discussion of "noun classifiers" (which I call > "truncated nouns") because, in fact, it is not a truncated noun, like > the others in the list; Without the list in front of me, what I noticed in Regina's two examples is that in at least one case, wi-, it's less truncation than loss of the thematic affix that forms the independent stem. In short, its a combining form like s^uNk- vs. s^uNka 'dog' or siNl- vs. siNte' 'tail'. There is denasalization in many cases with wiN-, there is nasal spread in the full stem wiNyaN (underlying |[wiNya]|), and there is an epenthetic glide -y-, but I'd explain wiNyaN < wiN + a 'woman' as otherwise exactly parallel with suNka < suNk + a. There are relatively few cases of CV + a, but it occurs. Another is heya < he + a 'louse'. I think there's also iNyaN < iN + a 'stone'. For that matter, parallel with cases like c^haNl- ~ c^haNte' 'heart' we have c^huN ~ c^huNwe' ('w.'s older sister', I think!), though the parallel older sibling terms are the only case of CV + e that I know of. I'm not sure what the Dakotan extended form is for ho- 'camp circle'. In OP the independent for is hu'dhuga, in which the -dhuga seems to be a locative element *roka 'inside', though the evidence is comparative, not internal to OP. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Tue Apr 5 18:50:42 2005 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:50:42 -0500 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) Message-ID: For what it's worth: IOM: haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > RP> There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal > reference > > JU> This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria >> actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention >> above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source >> until I made a search for it. > > When I saw Regina's comment I got to thinking I might have seen something > like wo = woyuta in Boas & Deloria, but I hadn't gotten around to checking > it yet. Since we have the contracted form wota, I suppose one could argue > that wo- as a classificatory prefix is from wol-, which seem plausible. > For example, Dakota speakers of the previous century - the century before > last I guess, now - seemed to find it plausible that Thi(N)thuN(waN) > 'Teton' should be derived from thiNta + thuNwaN, presumably via > thiNl-thuNwaN [thiNnthuN(w)aN]. > > Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate inflection of yuta (if > I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 haac^, A2 raac^, A3 > ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - PMVS *ru(u)t, or > perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has been transferred into > Winnebago. > > I hope I'm getting the final vowel of yuta correct in the various forms > above! > > However, all this aside, I still suspect wok?u < wa-o-k?u. It seems to > have a sort of partitive sense. > > JU> I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- >> seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen >> something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I >> run into it again, this time I would keep record. > > If there are other examples of this it would certainly be interesting. I > seem to recall hearing that there are sometimes drastic simplications in > Algonquian compounds. > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 20:06:39 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:06:39 -0500 Subject: verb suppletion. Message-ID: Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? There are other instances of verb pairs that are phonologically and semantically partly similar getting mixed conjugation. *e:he 'to say' and ie 'to talk' are mixed in more than one language. Historically it has happened with nouns and stative verbs also: Reflexes of *maNtho 'grizzly' and wihuNte 'black bear' get mixed in Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi. Similarly *wahkaN 'sacred' and *waNhkaN 'medicine' are mixed in some languages, with *wahkaN becoming 'snake' in Chiwere-Winnebago and but *waNhkaN becoming 'snake' in Tutelo, Biloxi and Ofo. Giulia Oliverio and I talk about these latter cases in the little paper in the Siebert Festschrift volume, and I explain the forms in detail there. Bob > IOM: > haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. >> Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate >> inflection of yuta (if >> I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 >> haac^, A2 raac^, A3 >> ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - >> PMVS *ru(u)t, or >> perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has >> been transferred into >> Winnebago. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 21:26:33 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:26:33 -0600 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <004001c53a11$2210d270$0b640945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > For what it's worth: > IOM: > haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. Since IOM has the same pattern as Winnebago and Dakotan, there's no question of Dakotan influence in Winnebago. It looks like an old pattern. Incidentally, this pattern is not found in Dhegiha, but perhaps mainly because a new verb 'to eat' *rathe has been innovated. I think Bob found some traces of *rute as 'to dip up', e.g., in Kaw. I don't remember if he had identified the source of *rathe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 21:38:57 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:38:57 -0600 Subject: verb suppletion. In-Reply-To: <003901c53a1a$fb931bd0$24b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley > Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or > more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? I don't think so. While *...te and *...the might both yield Winnebabo ...c^ and IOM ...j^e (not sure why ...j^i in first and second persons), the pattern of inflection with *ra... would be A1 *Raa-, A2 *s^raa-, A3 *ra-, i.e., something like A1 ha-daj^i, A2 ra-sdaj^i, A3(ruj^e) in IOM (with pleonastic overlaying of the regular paradigm indicated before dashes). And in Dakotan (e.g., Teton) *raathe would inflect A1 blathe, A2 nathe, (A3 yathe), not A1 wate, A2 yate. So, there's no way that particular pattern of suppletion could account for the pattern A1 *wa-t(e), A2 *ya-t(e), A3 *ru-t(e). The other examples are all good ones, of course. The best hypothesis I could come up with for *t- ~ *rut- 'eat' was that it might actually be *ut-, with the initial *r in the third person being perhaps a relict of a third person in *i-, so that the inflection was perhaps A1 *wa-(u)t-e, A2 *ya-(u)t-e, A3 (?) *i-(r)ut-e. I'm not so sure about that third person in *i-, though. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 22:20:13 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:20:13 -0500 Subject: verb suppletion. Message-ID: I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the same conservative pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be lying' (ruNke), verbs in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The only difference is nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a somewhat more innovative pattern. As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the very few verbs with the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. I suppose it may be possible to think of 'chew' as more recent in some sense (maybe just less conservative in conjugation pattern, but I think the /a/ vowel in some forms comes from the 'chew' verb nonetheless. I don't know which dental stop Dakotan dialects have here, but it would be interesting to look at the range of dialect data for this verb. The consonantism in the suppletive 'eat' works for me in CH/WI because *ra:the 'chew' has *th, (not *ht), and *rute 'eat' has just *t. Fortunately or unfortunately, both of these dentals have the reflex [d] or [j] in Chiwere and Hochunk (voiceless in WI word finally, of course), so the difference resides only in the V there. Both verb stems have reflexes in all MVS subgroups but reflexes of *rute are more specialized in Dhegiha apparently. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: verb suppletion. > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley >> Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or >> more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? > > I don't think so. While *...te and *...the might > both yield Winnebabo > ...c^ and IOM ...j^e (not sure why ...j^i in first > and second persons), > the pattern of inflection with *ra... would be A1 > *Raa-, A2 *s^raa-, A3 > *ra-, i.e., something like A1 ha-daj^i, A2 ra-sdaj^i, > A3(ruj^e) in IOM > (with pleonastic overlaying of the regular paradigm > indicated before > dashes). And in Dakotan (e.g., Teton) *raathe would > inflect A1 blathe, A2 > nathe, (A3 yathe), not A1 wate, A2 yate. So, there's > no way that > particular pattern of suppletion could account for > the pattern A1 > *wa-t(e), A2 *ya-t(e), A3 *ru-t(e). > > The other examples are all good ones, of course. > > The best hypothesis I could come up with for *t- ~ > *rut- 'eat' was that it > might actually be *ut-, with the initial *r in the > third person being > perhaps a relict of a third person in *i-, so that > the inflection was > perhaps A1 *wa-(u)t-e, A2 *ya-(u)t-e, A3 (?) > *i-(r)ut-e. I'm not so sure > about that third person in *i-, though. > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Apr 6 00:49:39 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:49:39 -0600 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) In-Reply-To: <001901c53a2d$a4482ce0$1eb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the same conservative > pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be lying' (ruNke), verbs > in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The only difference is > nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a somewhat more innovative > pattern. That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an r-stem inflectional pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there are verbs that take a pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. Usually the stem initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost before r, so that after all the sound changes have worked out you get a pattern of A1 m..., A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 *s^raathe, A3 *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 *s^rute, A3 *rute you might get quite interesting things, especially if the language also merged *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I hadn't allowed for that. However, though it would be exciting to have an(other) oral instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that this verb doesn't exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, which don't have aspiration as far as I know. In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling that the m/n/(*r ~ w ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth of the *?-stem pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation immediately preceding. I think that the basic pattern for *?-initial (or maybe it's *V-initial) stems (and others) was *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... A3 *V... *CV... *rv... The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - though *o 'to wound' and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - and mostly have some element before the inflectional slot that conditions an epenthetic *r or *w in the A3 form, e.g., A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' leading to paradigms like Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca A1 *imaNghe imaNghe A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe except that the second person appears instead as is^naNghe (later inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form from the *r-stem (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the apparent *r-stem (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes (across Dhegiha) you find the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., ibdhaNghe, or the third person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic dh (*r), e.g., iwaNghe. > As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the very few verbs with > the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' also appears in Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < *(r)iNk- 'SITTING ANIMATE' which inflects A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting (And has the same pattern of inflection for the suppletive stem dhaNkha < *uNk- in the plural.) I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, because I've noticed that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those stems match this mixed *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan Dakotan Winnebago A1 muN ha?uN A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN A3 ?uN ?uN (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about length.) In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has A1 maN A2 z^aN < *y-uN A3 aN OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does Winnebago s^?), but if the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical importation from *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume Winnebago has rebuilt things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to assume that all *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched to the mixed *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no initial element to condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By contrast, in Dhegiha it seems that the switchover affected all stems with epenthetic *r, plus a few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the glottal stop stems. If one is uncomfortable with different languages exhibiting different degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I think that to be consistant one has to recognize the following classes of verbs: I) to question II) auxiliaries with *r III) auxiliaries with *w IV) *?-stems There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's pretty clear that the second persons of IV in the various languages don't correspond with each other, though some of them clearly do match second persons in the I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more you sense that you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my progression to these conclusions: careful insistence on regular correspondences => numerous implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption of differential degrees of analogical leveling. My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is that (a) the original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd relative to other patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an obvious motive for analogizing pattern IV away. Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' carry their own epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the auxiliaries, acquire the conditioning only in situ as a positional enclitic following a suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or *(w)uNk - think *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, forms like *uN 'do', though some of them may also occur in contexts like *i-(r)uN 'do with, use' that condition it. Result - transfers from *V-stems to *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different degrees in different environments in different areas of the Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect continuum and when the regional dialects become distinct branches of PMV they show different patterns of behavior with stems that occurred in different environments. Eliminate random forms over a long period of time and you end up with the different patterns we see today. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 6 14:47:43 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:47:43 -0500 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) Message-ID: I think the real question I have about 'eat' is whether the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the accented /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. I know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one of very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I showed that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have identical outcomes, so those languages aren't diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think John is right and some other explanation is in order. It occurs to me that we already know that the sequence *wu (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and that normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, i.e., either the vowel or consonant changes. That being the case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give /wate/ regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad hoc as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is pretty reasonable. I don't think we've really ever figured out the precise status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether they are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are still a lot of imponderables (several of which John points out below). Bob > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the >> same conservative >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be >> lying' (ruNke), verbs >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The >> only difference is >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a >> somewhat more innovative >> pattern. > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an > r-stem inflectional > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there > are verbs that take a > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. > Usually the stem > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost > before r, so that > after all the sound changes have worked out you get a > pattern of A1 m..., > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). > > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 > *s^raathe, A3 > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 > *s^rute, A3 *rute you > might get quite interesting things, especially if the > language also merged > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I > hadn't allowed for > that. However, though it would be exciting to have > an(other) oral > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that > this verb doesn't > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, > which don't have > aspiration as far as I know. > > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling > that the m/n/(*r ~ w > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth > of the *?-stem > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation > immediately > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for > *?-initial (or maybe it's > *V-initial) stems (and others) was > > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems > > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... > > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - > though *o 'to wound' > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - > and mostly have some > element before the inflectional slot that conditions > an epenthetic *r or > *w in the A3 form, e.g., > > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' > > leading to paradigms like > > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe > > except that the second person appears instead as > is^naNghe (later > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form > from the *r-stem > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the > apparent *r-stem > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes > (across Dhegiha) you find > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., > ibdhaNghe, or the third > person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic > dh (*r), e.g., > iwaNghe. > >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the >> very few verbs with >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. > > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to > question' also appears in > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING > ANIMATE' which inflects > > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting > > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the > suppletive stem dhaNkha < > *uNk- in the plural.) > > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, > because I've noticed > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those > stems match this mixed > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan > > Dakotan Winnebago > A1 muN ha?uN > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN > A3 ?uN ?uN > > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about > length.) > > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has > > A1 maN > A2 z^aN < *y-uN > A3 aN > > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does > Winnebago s^?), but if > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical > importation from > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume > Winnebago has rebuilt > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) > > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to > assume that all > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched > to the mixed > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no > initial element to > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By > contrast, in Dhegiha it > seems that the switchover affected all stems with > epenthetic *r, plus a > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the > glottal stop stems. > > If one is uncomfortable with different languages > exhibiting different > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I > think that to be > consistant one has to recognize the following classes > of verbs: > > I) to question > II) auxiliaries with *r > III) auxiliaries with *w > IV) *?-stems > > There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's > pretty clear that > the second persons of IV in the various languages > don't correspond with > each other, though some of them clearly do match > second persons in the > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more > you sense that > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my > progression to these > conclusions: careful insistence on regular > correspondences => numerous > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption > of differential > degrees of analogical leveling. > > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is > that (a) the > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd > relative to other > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an > obvious motive for > analogizing pattern IV away. > > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' > carry their own > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the > auxiliaries, acquire > the conditioning only in situ as a positional > enclitic following a > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or > *(w)uNk - think > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. > > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, > forms like *uN 'do', > though some of them may also occur in contexts like > *i-(r)uN 'do with, > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from > *V-stems to > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different > degrees in different > environments in different areas of the > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect > continuum and when the regional dialects become > distinct branches of PMV > they show different patterns of behavior with stems > that occurred in > different environments. Eliminate random forms over > a long period of time > and you end up with the different patterns we see > today. > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Apr 6 15:55:51 2005 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:55:51 -0500 Subject: New Dakota Linguist Book In-Reply-To: <002201c53ab7$97f59f10$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Members: The Minnesota Historical Society has just released "550 Dakota Verbs" By Harlin LaFontaine and our own Neil McKay (Cantemaza). $19.95 www.mhspress.org Congratulations koda. Toksta ake, Louie From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 6 16:01:59 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:01:59 -0600 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) In-Reply-To: <002201c53ab7$97f59f10$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Lak. has unaspirated "t" in both yuta (wate, yate) and wote (wawate, wayate, wote, i.e. the form with the wa- prefix and the (now obsolete) rule that -ayu- goes to -o-. I'm not sure what you mean by 'eat physically'. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I think the real question I have about 'eat' is whether > the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the accented > /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. I > know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat > physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one of > very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I showed > that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have > identical outcomes, so those languages aren't > diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think John > is right and some other explanation is in order. It > occurs to me that we already know that the sequence *wu > (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and that > normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, i.e., > either the vowel or consonant changes. That being the > case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give /wate/ > regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires > accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad hoc > as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the > existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is pretty > reasonable. > > I don't think we've really ever figured out the precise > status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative > vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether they > are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are still > a lot of imponderables (several of which John points > out below). > > Bob > > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the > >> same conservative > >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be > >> lying' (ruNke), verbs > >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The > >> only difference is > >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a > >> somewhat more innovative > >> pattern. > > > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an > > r-stem inflectional > > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there > > are verbs that take a > > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. > > Usually the stem > > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost > > before r, so that > > after all the sound changes have worked out you get a > > pattern of A1 m..., > > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). > > > > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 > > *s^raathe, A3 > > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 > > *s^rute, A3 *rute you > > might get quite interesting things, especially if the > > language also merged > > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I > > hadn't allowed for > > that. However, though it would be exciting to have > > an(other) oral > > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that > > this verb doesn't > > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, > > which don't have > > aspiration as far as I know. > > > > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling > > that the m/n/(*r ~ w > > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth > > of the *?-stem > > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation > > immediately > > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for > > *?-initial (or maybe it's > > *V-initial) stems (and others) was > > > > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems > > > > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... > > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... > > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... > > > > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - > > though *o 'to wound' > > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - > > and mostly have some > > element before the inflectional slot that conditions > > an epenthetic *r or > > *w in the A3 form, e.g., > > > > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' > > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' > > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' > > > > leading to paradigms like > > > > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca > > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe > > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe > > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe > > > > except that the second person appears instead as > > is^naNghe (later > > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form > > from the *r-stem > > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the > > apparent *r-stem > > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes > > (across Dhegiha) you find > > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., > > ibdhaNghe, or the third > > person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic > > dh (*r), e.g., > > iwaNghe. > > > >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the > >> very few verbs with > >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. > > > > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to > > question' also appears in > > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < > > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING > > ANIMATE' which inflects > > > > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting > > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting > > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting > > > > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the > > suppletive stem dhaNkha < > > *uNk- in the plural.) > > > > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, > > because I've noticed > > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those > > stems match this mixed > > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan > > > > Dakotan Winnebago > > A1 muN ha?uN > > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN > > A3 ?uN ?uN > > > > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about > > length.) > > > > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has > > > > A1 maN > > A2 z^aN < *y-uN > > A3 aN > > > > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does > > Winnebago s^?), but if > > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical > > importation from > > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume > > Winnebago has rebuilt > > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) > > > > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to > > assume that all > > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched > > to the mixed > > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no > > initial element to > > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By > > contrast, in Dhegiha it > > seems that the switchover affected all stems with > > epenthetic *r, plus a > > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the > > glottal stop stems. > > > > If one is uncomfortable with different languages > > exhibiting different > > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I > > think that to be > > consistant one has to recognize the following classes > > of verbs: > > > > I) to question > > II) auxiliaries with *r > > III) auxiliaries with *w > > IV) *?-stems > > > > There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's > > pretty clear that > > the second persons of IV in the various languages > > don't correspond with > > each other, though some of them clearly do match > > second persons in the > > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more > > you sense that > > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my > > progression to these > > conclusions: careful insistence on regular > > correspondences => numerous > > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption > > of differential > > degrees of analogical leveling. > > > > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is > > that (a) the > > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd > > relative to other > > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to > > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, > > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 > > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 > > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an > > obvious motive for > > analogizing pattern IV away. > > > > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' > > carry their own > > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the > > auxiliaries, acquire > > the conditioning only in situ as a positional > > enclitic following a > > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or > > *(w)uNk - think > > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. > > > > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, > > forms like *uN 'do', > > though some of them may also occur in contexts like > > *i-(r)uN 'do with, > > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from > > *V-stems to > > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different > > degrees in different > > environments in different areas of the > > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect > > continuum and when the regional dialects become > > distinct branches of PMV > > they show different patterns of behavior with stems > > that occurred in > > different environments. Eliminate random forms over > > a long period of time > > and you end up with the different patterns we see > > today. > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 6 23:01:42 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:01:42 -0500 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) Message-ID: /rathe/, Lak. yatha' is 'chew' in most Siouan languages. EJ translated it as 'gossip' in Lak. "Eat" can be either physical or metaphorical, as in 'dine' I guess. The Yatha cognate set includes all MVS languages and Biloxi and refers to the physical act of eating something, i.e., chewing. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "ROOD DAVID S" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) > > Lak. has unaspirated "t" in both yuta (wate, yate) > and wote (wawate, > wayate, wote, i.e. the form with the wa- prefix and > the (now obsolete) > rule that -ayu- goes to -o-. I'm not sure what you > mean by 'eat > physically'. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > >> I think the real question I have about 'eat' is >> whether >> the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the >> accented >> /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. >> I >> know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat >> physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one >> of >> very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I >> showed >> that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have >> identical outcomes, so those languages aren't >> diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think >> John >> is right and some other explanation is in order. It >> occurs to me that we already know that the sequence >> *wu >> (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and >> that >> normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, >> i.e., >> either the vowel or consonant changes. That being >> the >> case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give >> /wate/ >> regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires >> accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad >> hoc >> as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the >> existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is >> pretty >> reasonable. >> >> I don't think we've really ever figured out the >> precise >> status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative >> vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether >> they >> are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are >> still >> a lot of imponderables (several of which John points >> out below). >> >> Bob >> >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are >> >> the >> >> same conservative >> >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and >> >> 'be >> >> lying' (ruNke), verbs >> >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. >> >> The >> >> only difference is >> >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a >> >> somewhat more innovative >> >> pattern. >> >> > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking >> > an >> > r-stem inflectional >> > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, >> > there >> > are verbs that take a >> > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob >> > says. >> > Usually the stem >> > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been >> > lost >> > before r, so that >> > after all the sound changes have worked out you >> > get a >> > pattern of A1 m..., >> > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). >> > >> > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, >> > A2 >> > *s^raathe, A3 >> > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 >> > *s^rute, A3 *rute you >> > might get quite interesting things, especially if >> > the >> > language also merged >> > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. >> > I >> > hadn't allowed for >> > that. However, though it would be exciting to >> > have >> > an(other) oral >> > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel >> > that >> > this verb doesn't >> > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, >> > which don't have >> > aspiration as far as I know. >> > >> > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the >> > feeling >> > that the m/n/(*r ~ w >> > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an >> > outgrowth >> > of the *?-stem >> > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed >> > notation >> > immediately >> > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for >> > *?-initial (or maybe it's >> > *V-initial) stems (and others) was >> > >> > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems >> > >> > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < >> > *w-rV... >> > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < >> > *y-rV... >> > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... >> > >> > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly >> > nasalized - >> > though *o 'to wound' >> > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - >> > and mostly have some >> > element before the inflectional slot that >> > conditions >> > an epenthetic *r or >> > *w in the A3 form, e.g., >> > >> > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' >> > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' >> > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' >> > >> > leading to paradigms like >> > >> > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca >> > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe >> > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe >> > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe >> > >> > except that the second person appears instead as >> > is^naNghe (later >> > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form >> > from the *r-stem >> > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the >> > apparent *r-stem >> > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes >> > (across Dhegiha) you find >> > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., >> > ibdhaNghe, or the third >> > person might have epenthetic w instead of >> > epenthetic >> > dh (*r), e.g., >> > iwaNghe. >> > >> >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the >> >> very few verbs with >> >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. >> > >> > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to >> > question' also appears in >> > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., >> > dhiNkhe < >> > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING >> > ANIMATE' which inflects >> > >> > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting >> > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting >> > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting >> > >> > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the >> > suppletive stem dhaNkha < >> > *uNk- in the plural.) >> > >> > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, >> > too, >> > because I've noticed >> > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those >> > stems match this mixed >> > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan >> > >> > Dakotan Winnebago >> > A1 muN ha?uN >> > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN >> > A3 ?uN ?uN >> > >> > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure >> > about >> > length.) >> > >> > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has >> > >> > A1 maN >> > A2 z^aN < *y-uN >> > A3 aN >> > >> > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does >> > Winnebago s^?), but if >> > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical >> > importation from >> > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume >> > Winnebago has rebuilt >> > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) >> > >> > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have >> > to >> > assume that all >> > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were >> > switched >> > to the mixed >> > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no >> > initial element to >> > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By >> > contrast, in Dhegiha it >> > seems that the switchover affected all stems with >> > epenthetic *r, plus a >> > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the >> > glottal stop stems. >> > >> > If one is uncomfortable with different languages >> > exhibiting different >> > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I >> > think that to be >> > consistant one has to recognize the following >> > classes >> > of verbs: >> > >> > I) to question >> > II) auxiliaries with *r >> > III) auxiliaries with *w >> > IV) *?-stems >> > >> > There is some potential for combining I-III, and >> > it's >> > pretty clear that >> > the second persons of IV in the various languages >> > don't correspond with >> > each other, though some of them clearly do match >> > second persons in the >> > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the >> > more >> > you sense that >> > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was >> > my >> > progression to these >> > conclusions: careful insistence on regular >> > correspondences => numerous >> > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an >> > assumption >> > of differential >> > degrees of analogical leveling. >> > >> > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing >> > is >> > that (a) the >> > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite >> > odd >> > relative to other >> > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to >> > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, >> > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 >> > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 >> > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's >> > an >> > obvious motive for >> > analogizing pattern IV away. >> > >> > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to >> > question' >> > carry their own >> > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like >> > the >> > auxiliaries, acquire >> > the conditioning only in situ as a positional >> > enclitic following a >> > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or >> > *(w)uNk - think >> > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. >> > >> > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, >> > e.g, >> > forms like *uN 'do', >> > though some of them may also occur in contexts >> > like >> > *i-(r)uN 'do with, >> > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from >> > *V-stems to >> > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different >> > degrees in different >> > environments in different areas of the >> > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect >> > continuum and when the regional dialects become >> > distinct branches of PMV >> > they show different patterns of behavior with >> > stems >> > that occurred in >> > different environments. Eliminate random forms >> > over >> > a long period of time >> > and you end up with the different patterns we see >> > today. >> > >> > >> > From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 10 21:45:58 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:45:58 -0500 Subject: 2005 Siouan and Caddoan Languages and Linguistics Conference Message-ID: 25th Annual Siouan and Caddoan Languages and Linguistics Conference Friday, June 17 — Sunday a.m., June 19, 2005 LOCATION: Museum Building, Kaw Nation Tribal Complex, Kaw City, Oklahoma ABSTRACT/TITLE DEADLINE: June 10, 2005. If you wish to be on the program, please send the title of your proposed paper or presentation to: by email or as an email attachment. You may also use the postal service if you wish: Robert L. Rankin, Department of Linguistics, 1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66044-3177. A brief abstract (no more than a couple of hundred words, preferably less) or description of your topic would also be appreciated. Format for the annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference has traditionally been quite informal and open. Language-related topics from very technical linguistics (minimalism, O.T., etc.) to methods and problems encountered in teaching Siouan or Caddoan languages to students are all welcome. Presentations may be formal and read aloud or they may be open discussions of particular problems and topics. Time slots for presentations will be 30 minutes unless more or less time is specifically requested by the presenter (we will try to accommodate everyone’s requests). With the presence of so many Siouan and Caddoan peoples in the vicinity, we hope to have good participation from various language programs (Siouan: Kaw, Osage, Ponca and Omaha, Quapaw and Ioway-Otoe-Missouria tribes and others farther afield; Caddoan: Pawnee, Wichita, Caddo) as well as many interested linguists. Last year our conference was quite international with participation of linguists from the Czech Republic, England, Germany, and Lithuania as well as representation from the Omaha and Winnebago tribes. Any special requests for equipment such as projector, tape recorder, computer, etc. should be directed to Justin McBride, Conference Co-organizer and the Language Coordinator of the Kaw Nation at as soon as possible, and he will let you know what is available. There will be a nominal registration fee of $10 for participants ($5 for students), to cover the cost of coffee-break refreshments. Kaw City, OK is located on state highway 11 about 12 miles ENE of Ponca City, OK on a long peninsula that extends into Kaw Lake. The tribal complex is on the north side of the highway entering town from the west and is hard to miss. There is no public transportation between Kaw City and Ponca City, so private vehicles and a van will be used to ferry participants between their motel and the tribal complex. Nearest airports: Oklahoma City (100 mi.), Tulsa (80 mi.), and Wichita, KS (80 mi.). If you are flying in, let us know your flight information and we will do our best to organize airport pickups or rental-car sharing. LODGING: A small block of rooms (10 non-smoking, 5 smoking) has been reserved, under the name Robert Rankin, at the Econo Lodge, 212 S. 14th St., Ponca City, OK 74601 (phone 580-762-3401 or fax 580-762-4550). Call before June 10th to get the group rate of $39+tax a night. It would probably pay to make reservations early! This is also the weekend of one of the Osage Inlonshka dances and a Cattlemen’s Association meeting nearby, and these, plus other events, may fill many of the motels in the area. There are several other motels in Ponca City. Most are more expensive. These can be found listed at: Click on “businesses” and only then “motels/hotels” for a complete list. (Currently the Fairfield Inn and Comfort Inn are under construction and not open.). For the slightly more adventurous, the conference site is near numerous lakeside campsites established and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Each campsite has a parking spot, water, electricity and a grill for cooking. There are shelters and picnic tables nearby as well as toilet and (very minimal) showering facilities. There is a charge of between $11 and $16 a day for campsites at the lake. The campsites are within a couple of miles of Kaw City but probably not quite within walking distance. We would appreciate being informed if you plan to attend the conference, even if you are not giving a talk, so we will know roughly how many people to expect. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCLC2005.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 10 21:59:53 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:59:53 -0500 Subject: SCLC call for papers. Message-ID: I just posted the first announcement for this year's SCLC to be held at the Kaw Nation in Kaw City, Oklahoma. Please let me know immediately if you spot any major errors, misspellings, etc. I'll wait a day or two and then post it to Linguist List, various tribal organizations and others who might be interested. Suggestions for these latter would be welcomed! I hope to see everybody there!! Bob From FurbeeL at missouri.edu Fri Apr 15 21:35:13 2005 From: FurbeeL at missouri.edu (Louanna Furbee) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:35:13 -0500 Subject: Oto In-Reply-To: <20050331160129.5843.qmail@web54610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >There are efforts among the Ioway. Contact "Jimm GoodTracks" >. Also Lance Foster and Lori Stanley >. Louanna Furbee >Dear Siouanists: > >I'm posting this on behalf of a young man of Oto ancestry who would >like to go back to his roots. He is particularly interested in the >Oto language. He wants to know if the language is still spoken >somewhere, are least rudimentarily, and if there are any >revitalization projects. > >Although Oto is officially extinct, he would appreciate any info or >addresses of people he could contact (speakers, specialists at both >scholarly and non-scholarly levels). I'd pass any incoming messages >on to him. > >Regina > > > >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - >Try >our new resources site! -- Prof. N. Louanna Furbee Department of Anthropology 107 Swallow Hall University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 USA Telephones: 573/882-9408 (office) 573/882-4731 (department) 573/446-0932 (home) 573/884-5450 (fax) E-mail: FurbeeL at missouri.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:17:03 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:17:03 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424CE2BD.5070407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On 1/4/05 6:57 am, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: I just noticed this reference to me. Yes wicanic'u would be 'he gave you to them'. It's one of my many minor errors. I'm not sure where I got these from, but probably Bushotter, which forms most of my data base. As far as I remember the context was 'giving in marriage'. There are very few such examples in my experience Bruce > 3) That's what I found at B. Ingham's: wicacic'u [wicha'chic?u] given as > "I gave you to them". Also: wicanic'u [wicha'nic?u] translated as "They > gave you to them "in marriage)" (which I'd expected to be wicanic'upi, > instead). > Maybe Bruce will comment on this? > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:28:27 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:28:27 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/4/05 6:39 pm, "ROOD DAVID S" wrote: How fascinating. Possibly also nis^ miye kte lo, mis^ niye kte lo. Any native speakers to solve the problem. I only remember that in this connection Boas and Deloria give similar play context exampples live imagmu 'I am a cat' and 'imaletka 'I am a branch'. Bruce What happens if you're planning a > prank with role substitution, and you need to say "I'm going to be you, > and you be me" (note English "me", by the way)? I'm going to guess it'd > have to be "niye hemacha kte, miye henicha kte" and not *hemayacha or, > abosultely out, *hechicha. Actually, I bet the more likely construction > would be niye (cha?) miye kte, which would confirm the "predicate" > analysis -- but I don't know what might happen if you force the use of > "hecha". > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:35:20 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:35:20 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424FE93D.4060003@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On 3/4/05 2:01 pm, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote: I don't think you can do that, but maybe you didn't mean it. I can visualize wawak'u hemaca, wawicak'u hemaca 'I am a giver of things' or even wawak'u ki he miye wawicak'u ki he miye 'I am the giver of donations'. Bruce> > the last one kind of meaning ?wawa-ma-k'u - I'm a giver of donations/I'm > big-hearted/generous) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:37:52 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:37:52 +0100 Subject: Oops. In-Reply-To: <00a401c53865$65488130$13b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 3/4/05 4:54 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: >> In other words, the lines representing the other >> cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus >> rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the >> angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and >> 'oblique cases'. > > I see that ADJ.-DET. relationships are changing in my > 66 year-old English. The above should read: "with the > vertical casus rectus", NOT "with vertical the casus > rectus" > > Bob > > > Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, mansuub 'inclined' is accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all through of as 1-90 degrees. However they may have it from the Greeks Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:46:35 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:46:35 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/4/05 8:29 pm, "Koontz John E" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: >>> (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' >> >> I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is >> a contraction of wo'yute 'food' >> (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). > > Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? > > > Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while, I hope these remarks have not laready been made. Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. Bruce From rankin at ku.edu Mon Apr 18 14:53:23 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:53:23 -0500 Subject: case diagram Message-ID: That's really interesting. I've been part of an off-list discussion of this sort of diagramatic representation of case and my retired colleague, Keith Percival, who originally brought the diagram to my attention, believes it may only date from the last couple of centuries. The Arabic brings a whole new dimension to the question. Any idea how long this usage has been in Arabic? Bob >>> In other words, the lines representing the other >>> cases formed OBLIQUE angles with the vertical, the >>> casus >>> rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the >>> angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' >>> and >>> 'oblique cases'. > Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, > mansuub 'inclined' is > accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all > through of as 1-90 degrees. > However they may have it from the Greeks > Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 17:19:46 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:19:46 +0100 Subject: case diagram In-Reply-To: <004b01c54426$5f8dc620$1bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 18/4/05 3:53 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: > That's really interesting. I've been part of an > off-list discussion of this sort of diagramatic > representation of case and my retired colleague, Keith > Percival, who originally brought the diagram to my > attention, believes it may only date from the last > couple of centuries. The Arabic brings a whole new > dimension to the question. Any idea how long this > usage has been in Arabic? Bob > >> Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, >> mansuub 'inclined' is >> accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all >> through of as 1-90 degrees. >> However they may have it from the Greeks >> Bruce > > > > As far as I know the terminology is all quite early ie from the Abbasid period in Basra and Kufa, which makes it 7th-8th centuries AD. They also had quite reasonable phonetic terminology, strangely enough they had not discovered voice-voiceless, but almost got it with something called mahmuus 'whispered' and majhuur 'loud'. Bruce From okibjonathan at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 14:19:13 2005 From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:19:13 -0700 Subject: 12 good reasons why advertising companies should hire anthropologists Message-ID: Howdy, I thought you might find these true facts a bit humorous. Jonathan 12 good reasons why advertising companies should hire liguistic anthropologists: 1. The Dairy Association's huge success with the campaign "Got Milk?" prompted them to expand advertising to Mexico. It was soon brought to their attention the Spanish translation read, "Are you lactating?" 2. Coors Beer put its slogan, "Turn it loose," into Spanish, where it was read as "Suffer from diarrhea". 3. Scandinavian vacuum manufacturer Electrolux used the following in an American campaign: "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux". 4. Clairol introduced the "Mist Stick", a curling iron, into Germany only to find out that "mist" is slang for manure. Not too many people had use for the manure stick". 5. When Gerber started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as in the US, with the smiling baby on the label. Later they learned that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside, since many people can't read. 6. Colgate introduced a toothpaste in France called Cue, which also happened to be the name of a notorious porno magazine. 7. An American T-shirt maker in Miami printed shirts for the Spanish market which promoted the Pope's visit some years ago. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa). 8. Pepsi's "Come alive with the Pepsi Generation" translated into "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave", in Chinese. 9. The Coca-Cola name in China was first read as "Ke-kou-ke-la", meaning "Bite the wax tadpole" or "female horse stuffed with wax", depending on the dialect. Coke then researched 40,000 characters to find a phonetic equivalent "ko-kou-ko-le", translating into "happiness in the mouth". 10. Frank Perdue's chicken slogan, "it takes a strong man to make a tender chicken" was translated into Spanish as "it takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate". 11. When Parker Pen marketed a ball-point pen in Mexico, its ads were supposed to have read, "it won't leak in your pocket and embarrass you". Instead, the company thought that the word "embarazar" (to impregnate) meant to embarrass, so the ad read: "It won't leak in your pocket and make you pregnant". 12. When Chevrolet distributed their "Nova" model cars in Mexico, they could not understand why they did not sell as well as they did in the US until a middle manager pointed out that in Spanish "Nova" translates as "no go". --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 19 19:58:43 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:58:43 -0600 Subject: SSILA Learning Materials List (SSILA Bulletin #221) (fwd) Message-ID: The following is extracted from the current SSILA newsletter. Though a number of members of the Siouan List are also SSILA members, it seems to me that the SSILA non-members on the list might be interested in this. ============= * Learning Aids update ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As many of you will know, the SSILA website has a "Learning Aids" page, with listings of pedagogical materials--primers, dictionaries, tapes, lessons, etc.--for various American Indian languages. As many of you may also know, these listings are terribly out of date. A great many of the books and tapes announced there are no long available, or the prices have changed, or the ordering addresses have long since been changed. We are now in the process of reviewing and updating the entire Learning Aids page. To help us in this daunting task, could we ask the following of you? (1) If you know for certain that a listing on the Learning Aids page is incorrect in some way, please let us know the specifics. (2) If you are the publisher or distributor of learning materials on some specific language or languages: please send us a description of the materials (books, tapes, CDs, videos, etc.), the prices you are asking, and ordering instructions. If you have a website from which these materials can be ordered, please let us know the address. If you accept payments only by mail, let us know the forms of payment you accept (check, credit card, etc.) (3) If you have purchased or otherwise know about some learning materials that you would recommend for a particular language: please send us the details, if possible including where the materials can be obtained. (4) If you are reasonably familiar with materials in a certain area (e.g., Oklahoma languages) or on a particular group of languages (e.g., Athabaskan languages), and have the time to spare, we would be *most* grateful if you could serve as a contributing editor for the Learning Aids page. Spearheading this project will be the SSILA website manager, Ardis Eschenberg, whom you can contact at . You can also contact the Bulletin editor, Victor Golla, at . We look forward to hearing from you! From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 21 08:37:20 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:37:20 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. Bruce There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes that wa- when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. In other words, assuming a basic verb form ok'u, we wouldn't get wa-ok'u, but rather, wo-k'u. So there is nothing that keeps us from analyzing wok'u as containing wa- 'non-specific patient' (I avoid the term indefinite). Buechel does have an entry ok'u 'to lend, give food to etc.' The examples that document this contraction are legion in the Buechel dictionary, e.g. wokiyaka 'to speak to', wokah^nig^a 'to understand', wohaN 'to cook, boil'. Regina __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Apr 21 15:59:18 2005 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:59:18 -0400 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050421083720.84989.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I spoke to a Native Speaker about this and, in his words, it is the 'w' and not the 'o' or the 'a.' He related the wa and wo forms and noted that in certain contexts (before uN) it can be hard to distinguish which is more appropriate (maybe even it is just the orthographic convention of the writer?). So, his intuition did not involve a food-related analysis. I wish I had written everything he said down, but I didn't. There was more to it. I am thankful for his sharing (he said to go ahead and post this) and ask to be excused of any inadequacies of my memory. -Ardis Quoting REGINA PUSTET : > [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] > > Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does > occur in > a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from > woyute > as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai > 'bring > food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota > 'eat > things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. > Bruce > > There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes > that wa- when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. In other > words, assuming a basic verb form ok'u, we wouldn't get wa-ok'u, but > rather, wo-k'u. So there is nothing that keeps us from analyzing > wok'u as containing wa- 'non-specific patient' (I avoid the term > indefinite). Buechel does have an entry ok'u 'to lend, give food to > etc.' The examples that document this contraction are legion in the > Buechel dictionary, e.g. wokiyaka 'to speak to', wokah^nig^a 'to > understand', wohaN 'to cook, boil'. > > Regina > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Apr 21 16:36:48 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:36:48 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050421083720.84989.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok¹u means Œto lend¹, why should we have wok¹u for Œto give food¹. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means Œfood¹ and does not come from wa-o Bruce On 21/4/05 9:37 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] > > Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in > a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute > as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring > food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat > things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. > Bruce > There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes that wa- > when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. > > Regina > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 21 18:26:23 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:26:23 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Bruce Ingham wrote: > The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok¹u > means Œto lend¹, why should we have wok¹u for Œto give food¹. Both Jan and > I are presuming that wo- means Œfood¹ and does not come from wa-o I've noticed various Omaha-Ponca instances of u'- < *wo- that seem to have the reading 'an instance of ...'. I think u's^kaN - something like 'doings' - would be an example, though there are others. 'Doings' in the sense of 'get-together, celebration' is a usage I've encountered in Omaha English. It's not an active part of my own dialect of English, but I recognize it and I think it's not restricted to Omaha English. I don't know if it's widespread in Nebraska. Maybe Dakota wo'k?u refers to an occasion of giving and food is simply a characteristic gift? If wo'- (or OP u'-) in this case indicates to an instance or occasion, then reversing the nominalization suggests that o- (or OP u-) indicates something like performing an act of something or participating in an occasion of something, which seems like an ideal sort of derivational process for forming legal or other specialized terminology. ("On or about the 20th of April the aforesaid did give, or perform an act of donation, ...") Maybe that helps explain why 'donate' has been suggested as a translation rather than 'give'? It seems to me that the native speaker intuitions that Ardis relayed might reflect something like this notion of the relationship between wa- and wo-forms, and hence of unmarked and o-forms, though I may be reaching there. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 06:13:28 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:13:28 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok�u means �to lend�, why should we have wok�u for �to give food�. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means �food� and does not come from wa-o Bruce I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. Regina __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 22 17:05:14 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:05:14 -0600 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050422061329.80447.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything > to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit > such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations > containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial > o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. My guess is that the problem with this approach is that any wo- in this sense of 'food' probably wouldn't be productive enough to elicit arbitrary examples of it. So it may come down to a philological exercize using whatever examples Boas & Deloria cite to support themselves, plus any others in sources like Riggs and Buechel. This is something that one of us could probably do fairly quickly. > (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical > classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). Assuming that wo- 'food' would be from attested wotA, a attested peculiarity of yutA, and not from woyutA per se, we'd probably be dealing with *wol-k?u > wo'k?u, right? Would the stress on a compound of this form be wolk?u'? I'm more than a little vague on the finer points of Dakota accentuation, but I seem to recall that compounding is one of the contexts in Dakotan where accent is not restricted to the "first root" in a word, e.g., c^aNlwa's^te, if I recall the example correctly. > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o > either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the > language. And in Mississippi Valley Siouan generally, to the point that it might be treated less as a process in Dakotan than as a still more or transparent process of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan. But when is something like this a process and when is it an artifact? > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a > reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the > phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in > favor of the wa-o hypothesis. I realize that this is just a minor > issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. I quite agree that this deserves clasificaiton. It is the sort of superficially minor point on which important morphological issues can turn, and it is also a very longstanding conundrum introduced by Boas & Deloria themselves. Do we accept or reject their account of wo- 'food'? This is a good question for all you Dakotanists and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the general issue is, does Dakotan display an occasional pattern of more or less arbitrary or drastic reductions of incorporated elements to which we can appeal in resolving the structure of forms like wok?u 'give, e.g., 'giving portions' rather than as a gloss on (w)o-? Without having reviewed other proposed wo- 'food' forms, I would be doubtful that there is a regular formation of this nature, though it's not inconceivable. But, Regina (and Jan and Bruce et al.) I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? From pustetrm at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 18:21:13 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:21:13 -0700 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: [John:] I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? I'd say it's a possibility, at least it's far more plausible than a contraction of woyute 'food' to wo-. wol- would also solve the stress problem nicely, because any combination of wa- 'non-specific patient' plus verb-initial yu-, as in yutA 'eat', will result in stressed wo-. (Sometimes the contraction does not take place and wa-yu- is retained, but this is another issue.) My only concerns regarding the wol-hypothesis are semantic in nature. To me, wotA means 'to eat (itr.)' and nothing else, i.e. this lexical item lacks the nominal reading that would be required if the wol- = food hypothesis were adequate. But then, Bruce's wol+transportation verb example, if I remember it correctly, seems to imply such a nominal reading. Regina Koontz John E wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything > to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit > such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations > containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial > o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. My guess is that the problem with this approach is that any wo- in this sense of 'food' probably wouldn't be productive enough to elicit arbitrary examples of it. So it may come down to a philological exercize using whatever examples Boas & Deloria cite to support themselves, plus any others in sources like Riggs and Buechel. This is something that one of us could probably do fairly quickly. > (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical > classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). Assuming that wo- 'food' would be from attested wotA, a attested peculiarity of yutA, and not from woyutA per se, we'd probably be dealing with *wol-k?u > wo'k?u, right? Would the stress on a compound of this form be wolk?u'? I'm more than a little vague on the finer points of Dakota accentuation, but I seem to recall that compounding is one of the contexts in Dakotan where accent is not restricted to the "first root" in a word, e.g., c^aNlwa's^te, if I recall the example correctly. > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o > either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the > language. And in Mississippi Valley Siouan generally, to the point that it might be treated less as a process in Dakotan than as a still more or transparent process of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan. But when is something like this a process and when is it an artifact? > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a > reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the > phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in > favor of the wa-o hypothesis. I realize that this is just a minor > issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. I quite agree that this deserves clasificaiton. It is the sort of superficially minor point on which important morphological issues can turn, and it is also a very longstanding conundrum introduced by Boas & Deloria themselves. Do we accept or reject their account of wo- 'food'? This is a good question for all you Dakotanists and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the general issue is, does Dakotan display an occasional pattern of more or less arbitrary or drastic reductions of incorporated elements to which we can appeal in resolving the structure of forms like wok?u 'give, e.g., 'giving portions' rather than as a gloss on (w)o-? Without having reviewed other proposed wo- 'food' forms, I would be doubtful that there is a regular formation of this nature, though it's not inconceivable. But, Regina (and Jan and Bruce et al.) I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 22 19:00:04 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:00:04 -0600 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050422182113.17897.qmail@web54607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > My only concerns regarding the wol-hypothesis are semantic in nature. To > me, wotA means 'to eat (itr.)' and nothing else, i.e. this lexical item > lacks the nominal reading that would be required if the wol- = food > hypothesis were adequate. But then, Bruce's wol+transportation verb > example, if I remember it correctly, seems to imply such a nominal > reading. I agree that for this analysis to be plausible there would have to be a reading wotA 'food'. I think a wa-form as a nominal in itself would be reasonable, but I admit that I'd expect *wayu'tA (not sure of appropriate final vowel), not wo'(yu)tA for 'food'. However, now that you raise the point I think I recall plant names in Gilmore's ethnobotany of Nebraska with forms like chapathawote. I would parse this as 'beaver-its-food', and I think there are some additional 'its food' plant names in Buechel in the various plant name lists. I may have some details of the forms wrong in my memory, but I remember being struck by the occurrence of tha- with a wo-derivative, which I took as evidence that wotA in this context was fully nominal. Subject to verifying this recollection, would that help? From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Apr 23 13:08:52 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:08:52 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050422061329.80447.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22/4/05 7:13 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. > > The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok’u > means ‘to lend’, why should we have wok’u for ‘to give food’. Both Jan and I > are presuming that wo- means ‘food’ and does not come from wa-o > > Bruce > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to > one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an > element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- > 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that > this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a > hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, > because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of > woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity > involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. > i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves > clarification. > > Regina > __________________________________________________ Regina It may be that Buechel says ok¹u may involve food, but I¹ve only ever seen it used to mean Œlend¹. Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don¹t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k¹u Œgive¹ Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Apr 23 13:25:54 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:25:54 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just thought of some more wo = 'food' examples wola 'ask for' wolkhiya 'cause to eat', wowakaaya 'bring food to' , wokichin 'ask for food for sby' Bruce From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 18:52:51 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:52:51 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don�t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k�u �give� Bruce The contraction wol- > wo- is not the problem, Bruce. Loss of the L could happen any time and to me, does not require much explanation. The hard part is establishing wol- as something that is semantically more similar to a nominal reading 'food' rather than to the original intransitive verb wotA 'to eat'. John seems to be in the process of discovering some interesting wol- 'food' compounds that might help here. Lakota does have verb serialization, of course, but claiming that wol+k'u adds up to a translation 'to give food to', on the assumption that wol- is to be interpreted as a verb rather than as a noun, strikes me as not very idiomatic given the way serial verb constructions function in the language at the semantic level. The translation would have to be more like: 's/he gave it to him/her eating'. Regina Bruce Ingham wrote:On 22/4/05 7:13 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok�u means �to lend�, why should we have wok�u for �to give food�. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means �food� and does not come from wa-o Bruce I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. Regina __________________________________________________ Regina It may be that Buechel says ok�u may involve food, but I�ve only ever seen it used to mean �lend�. Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don�t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k�u �give� Bruce __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Apr 26 10:33:49 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:33:49 +0100 Subject: SCLC call for papers. In-Reply-To: <005301c53e18$a12486f0$2cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 10/4/05 10:59 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: > I just posted the first announcement for this year's > SCLC to be held at the Kaw Nation in Kaw City, > Oklahoma. Please let me know immediately if you spot > any major errors, misspellings, etc. I'll wait a day > or two and then post it to Linguist List, various > tribal organizations and others who might be > interested. Suggestions for these latter would be > welcomed! > > I hope to see everybody there!! > > Bob > > > Dear Bob I look forward to seeing you at the conference. I would like to give a paper entitled 'Adverbial function in Lakota' I attach and also paste an abstract Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Adverbs abstract Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Apr 26 14:23:15 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:23:15 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050423185251.39791.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 23/4/05 7:52 pm, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don’t see why > wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k’u > ‘give’ > Bruce > The contraction wol- > wo- is not the problem, Bruce. Loss of the L could > happen any time and to me, does not require much explanation. The hard part is > establishing wol- as something that is semantically more similar to a nominal > reading 'food' rather than to the original intransitive verb wotA 'to eat'. > John seems to be in the process of discovering some interesting wol- 'food' > compounds that might help here. > Lakota does have verb serialization, of course, but claiming that wol+k'u adds > up to a translation 'to give food to', on the assumption that wol- is to be > interpreted as a verb rather than as a noun, strikes me as not very idiomatic > given the way serial verb constructions function in the language at the > semantic level. The translation would have to be more like: 's/he gave it to > him/her eating'. > > Regina > > > >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >> Ah, I see your problem. But I don¹t see why we have to think it comes from woyute. I would happily have it as ultimately related to wota and then shortened to wol- and used in making compound verbs. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Apr 27 14:56:59 2005 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:56:59 -0500 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN Message-ID: >>From 1825-1840, there was an Otoe leader named Shun'mañikathi (Prairie Wolf), which appears in documents as "Chon-Moni-Case", "Shau-mone-kusse", etc. However, his actual name was overshawdowed by the name above "IATAN/ IOTAN". This was the name given him by the fur traders, it is said, after his successful encounter with the Comanche. This name -- Iatan/ Iotan-- from which towns have named "to honor the chief", is said to mean "Comanchi". The usual name in IOM for Comanche is "Paduka" or even "Padoke" ("Wet Head" if in reference to a human being OR "Wet Nose" if reference is to an animal). There was earlier dialog about this latter term as it appears in Omaha-Ponca. My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I can not make any sence of it in IOM, and have concluded that is it from the Comanche language? a French term? or what? Has anyone come across this term for other tribal communities or have information of the term origin. Jimm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 27 17:26:36 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:26:36 -0600 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN In-Reply-To: <003b01c54b39$609b3290$34650945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm, I sent this query to the person I know who knows Comanche the best (Jean Charney) and got this response: That word does not sound Comanche to me. They don't do initial voiced stops, for one thing. My Comanche is totally rusty; I suggest that you contact Tom Kavanaugh, who has an unparalleled knowledge of Comanche history. He's still at Indiana, as far as I know. His Comanche Political History has a list of ethnonyms from the 1700s & 1800s, and a quick scan of those didn't yield any likely candidates. I will leave it up to you to keep up the hunt. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > >From 1825-1840, there was an Otoe leader named Shun'mañikathi (Prairie > Wolf), which appears in documents as "Chon-Moni-Case", "Shau-mone-kusse", > etc. > However, his actual name was overshawdowed by the name above "IATAN/ IOTAN". > This was the name given him by the fur traders, it is said, after his > successful encounter with the Comanche. This name -- Iatan/ Iotan-- from > which towns have named "to honor the chief", is said to mean "Comanchi". > The usual name in IOM for Comanche is "Paduka" or even "Padoke" ("Wet Head" > if in reference to a human being OR "Wet Nose" if reference is to an > animal). There was earlier dialog about this latter term as it appears in > Omaha-Ponca. > > My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I can not make any > sence of it in IOM, and have concluded that is it from the Comanche > language? a French term? or what? > Has anyone come across this term for other tribal communities or have > information of the term origin. > Jimm > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Apr 27 18:25:42 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:25:42 -0500 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN In-Reply-To: <003b01c54b39$609b3290$34650945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I have many examples of this name in a great variety of spellings, and I've been frustrated in trying to etymologize it. Most of the examples come from the first half if the 19th century, but I've found a few from the late 18c, e.g., Spanish Laytanes (1785), and French les hahitannes (1796), with hypothetical singular *l'hahitanne. These lead me to suspect that the original name had initial l- which was sometimes lost as though it were the French definite article: Laytan > l'hahitanne > Iatan (and varr.) If that's true, we could at least narrow the etymon down to a (presumably) Plains language with [l]: ideas anyone? Sorry not to be of more help. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 27 21:12:17 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:12:17 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: I tried explaining this name when I was going through the Siouan names (or supposedly Siouan names) for Bill Bright. This was for the "Native American Place Names of the US" published last year by the OU press. I'm afraid I didn't have much luck, and Bill ended up reproducing what John Rydjord had written about this name years ago. Rydjord was well educated and fascinated with place names. He knew enough to use the Osage and other dictionaries pretty judiciously. But he also collected lots of erronious etymologies from other scholars. I'll reproduce here most of what the NAPUS volume says: IATAN (Mo., Platte Co.) Named for an Oto leader . . . because of his battles with the Comanche people. who were sometimes called or (Rydjord 1968). This word is probably related to IATT (Grant Parish, LA) (recorded in 1816 as Hietan). Iatan has also been used to name a place in Tex. (Mitchell Co.). A related name may be Yutan (Saunders Co., Neb.) Iatan/Ietan are shown as being pronounced [ay6tan] (where 6 is a schwa, like the last vowel in ''sofa'') and the initial vowel is stressed. The similar place name in Louisiana is pronounced [ay6t] and the place in Texas is pronounced [aytan] with the accent on the last syllable. So the letter ''I'' represents [ay], as in ''sigh'', consistently. So, basically, this does not appear to be a native Otoe name. It's the name of somebody or some group that this particular Otoe chief beat in battle. And this DOES fit one of the naming traditions of Siouan-speaking warriors. You whip somebody and you can take his name. One of the Kaw names that baffled us for the longest time, Allegawahoo (in various spellings), was finally located by Justin McBride. It was the name of a Pawnee warrior that this particular Kaw chief had fought and killed. He then took the man's name, which meant something like 'Big Elk' in Pawnee. So it wasn't a native Kaw name, but a Kaw chief took it, essentially as a trophy. I expect that Iatan has some sort of similar history. I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. The only other possibility is the Saunders Co., Nebraska place name, Yutan, which is pronounced [yutan] ''yoo-tan'', and is apparently named for the same Otoe chief. Accent the first syllable. Wish I could help more, but this is all I've been able to dredge up. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Apr 27 22:23:03 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:23:03 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. In-Reply-To: <000f01c54b6d$cb641720$29b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Bob wrote: > I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called > the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher & La Flesche). Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 27 22:19:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:19:26 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: Yes, Padouca (padunka, padunke, padoke, etc., etc.) is used by several eastern plains tribes to refer to those ''wild'' folks 'way out West. It refers variously to Apaches, Comanches and/or maybe others. Iatan may be a similar name from some other source language. Padouca has no real, known meaning, but, as Jimm points out, it gets broken down and ''analyzed'' by various tribes in their respective languages. I ain't holding my breath over this one either. :-) Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. > Bob wrote: >> I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called >> the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. > > Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca > term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains > Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking > ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. > > Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher > & La Flesche). > > Rory > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Apr 27 22:20:46 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:20:46 -0700 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. Dave ---------- >From: "R. Rankin" >To: >Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. >Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2005, 3:19 pm > > Yes, Padouca (padunka, padunke, padoke, etc., etc.) is > used by several eastern plains tribes to refer to those > ''wild'' folks 'way out West. It refers variously to > Apaches, Comanches and/or maybe others. Iatan may be a > similar name from some other source language. Padouca > has no real, known meaning, but, as Jimm points out, it > gets broken down and ''analyzed'' by various tribes in > their respective languages. > > I ain't holding my breath over this one either. :-) > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:23 PM > Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. > > >> Bob wrote: >>> I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called >>> the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. >> >> Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca >> term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains >> Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking >> ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. >> >> Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher >> & La Flesche). >> >> Rory >> >> > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Apr 27 22:49:38 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:49:38 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. > > Dave How far east is the term known? Rory From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Apr 27 23:12:18 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:12:18 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. Dave >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. >> Dave > How far east is the term known? > Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 00:07:34 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:07:34 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ("Padouca" name: How far east is it known?) > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > Dave These tribes were all transferred to northeastern Kansas near the Kaw and the Iowa-Oto in about 1846, weren't they? Could it have come into their languages at that time, or do we have evidence that they used the "Padouca" name before then? Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Apr 28 00:28:09 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:28:09 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > ("Padouca" name: How far east is it known?) > > >>In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. >> >>Dave > > > These tribes were all transferred to northeastern Kansas near the Kaw > and the Iowa-Oto in about 1846, weren't they? Could it have come > into their languages at that time, or do we have evidence that they > used the "Padouca" name before then? SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des Padoucas". Alan From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Apr 28 00:52:15 2005 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:52:15 -0400 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <42702E19.3070202@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) That's a bit East. > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > des > Padoucas". > > Alan > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 06:13:09 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:13:09 -0600 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds Message-ID: The brief summary is, I think, that there is evidence for wo'te 'food', though normally in the context of food for animals: 'forage', 'browse', etc. At the same time, it seems doubtful that wo'-verbs with 'food' in the gloss derive from wol= < wo'te as an incorporand, though there may be some influenced from wol=. First, for the benefit of any non-Dakotanists (myself, anyway), in Dakotan as attested for Santee and Teton in the Riggs/Williamson-Buechel dictionary complex and in Ingham the form wo'yute is the nominal 'food', with yu'ta 'eat (trans.)' and wo'ta 'eat (intrans.)' as the verbal forms. For the benefit of the Dakotanists, the Omaha-Ponca pattern is somewhat simpler: dhathe 'to eat (trans.)', wadha'the 'to eat (intrans.); food'. It appears, however, that Dakotan wo'te 'food' does exist. Gilmore (1977), originally printed in 1914 lists the following plant names. Note that Gilmore's Linnaean binomials are generally out of date. "pispiza ta wote" (prairie-dog its-food) = Boerbera papposa 'prairie-dog fennel; fetid marigold' "zuzecha ta wote" (snake its-food) Celastrus scandens 'Bittersweet' "pte ta wote" (buffalo its-food) Geoprumnon crassicarpum 'Buffalo pea; ground plum' "h.eh.aka ta pezhuta, h.eh.aka ta wote" (elk its-medicine, elk its-food) Monarda fistulosa 'Horsemint' "zuzecha ta wote sapsapa" (snake its-medicine black-here-and-there) Symphoricarpos sp. 'Coralberry; Buck brush' Somewhat similar formations: "maka ta omnicha" (earth its-beans) Falcata comosa 'Groundbean' "heyoka ta pezhuta" (contrary his-medicine) Malvastrum coccineum 'Red false mallow' "chap' ta haza" (p' = p + apostrophe) (beaver its-grape) Ribes americanum 'Wild black currant' In fact, a very similar set of forms occur in Buechel, etc. See, for example, the lists of flowers, etc., in the English index to Buechel. In most cases wote here might be better glossed as something like 'browse' or 'forage', or perhaps just 'animal food', so it is not surprising if the form doesn't appear as 'food'. The fact that it doesn't appear in its own right at all may mean that it is specialized vocabulary that has been missed or that it only occurs in longer forms at present. Students of vocabulary and cultural contact may notice that in many cases the English name is obviously a calque of the Dakota name. Now, let's consider the possibility that wo- as a prefix in forms with the gloss 'food' comes from wo'ta 'to eat (intrans.)' ~ wo'te 'food' ~ wol- 'food (combining form)'. The hypothesis here comes from Boas & Deloria (1941:71) as far as I am aware. They say (1941:70) "A number of nouns in abbreviated form (or their primary stems?) are used in compounds as classifiers. The consciousness of their derivation is not always clear as is proved by those cases in which the noun is obscured by metathesis. Examples are: waNsma'hi for mas-waN'hi (metal arrow tooth) 'iron arrowhead' ..." The on p. 71 they say "wo- food; --- wo'yute 'good'; wo'(wa)k?u '(I) give food'; -- wo'aya 'to take food to a guest'; -- wo'(wa)la '(I) ask for food'." Looking under wo- in Buechel, for example, yields: wo 'food', cf. wo'yute (i.e., a reference for the morpheme) wo'c^hiNpi 'begging, craving; hunger' wo'k?u 'to give food to' wo'la 'to beg food' wo'las?a 'a beggar' (wo'la=s?a) wo'luta 'the round of a beef animal when dried' wo'soso 'meat cut in strips or strings' (maybe not?) wo'sota 'to kill off, to kill all the game' (maybe not?) wo'yaptapi 'leavings, fragments of food' wo'yute 'food' Here I've omitted any food-related form in which wo- is plainly a locative, e.g., wo'haN 'to cook, to boil, to make a feast', i.e., 'to boil something in something'. The following forms actually have wol, although wo'lwota is a reduplicated form 'to eat (repeatedly)'. wo'lwota 'to eat' wol=i'glus^taN 'to finish eating' wo'l=wic^hayapi 'a banquet' wol=ya' 'to make a feast' This is not a large list. Unlike some other classificatory prefixes, all examples, involve verbs, or nouns derived from verbs. While it is tempting to regard some of the wo-not-wol as cases of wo- derived from wol- and there seems to be no real semantic obstacle to this, I have noticed an interesting thing. Most of the wo-forms have a corresponding o-form with a related gloss: wo'chiNpi ~ oc^hiN' 'to desire, beg, ask for' wo'k?u ~ ok?u' 'to give to, e.g., food; to give a portion to' wo'luta ~ o'lute 'thigh muscle' wo'soso ~ oso' 'to cut open' wo'sota ~ o'sota 'all gone, used up' wo'yaptapi ~ oya'pta 'to leave, have over and above what one eats' wo'yute ~ oyu'te 'eating, food' In short, the wo'- cases are all plausibly wa-indefinite object forms derived from an underlying locative in o. My impression is that while wo'- as a 'food' classifier might be influenced by the existence of wol-compounds from wo'te 'food (for animals)', what we really have etymologically is wo'- < *wa-o'- where an indefinite object is pragmatically a reference to food. This intepretation of wo'- is enhanced as suggested by Regina by the accentual pattern with wo'-, though compounds with wo'l= may also show initial accent. Different sorts of compounds show different accentual patterns. John E. Koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 06:26:13 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:26:13 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic groups. >>From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and verse on the arguments these days. A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the reference remains "Northern Caddoan." The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been borrowed from French. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 07:17:18 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:17:18 -0700 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the most systematic and thorough approach to the issue that we've had on the list so far -- I have nothing more to add. John's evidence goes with my initial intuition that wok'u > wa-o-k'u. Regina Koontz John E wrote: The brief summary is, I think, that there is evidence for wo'te 'food', though normally in the context of food for animals: 'forage', 'browse', etc. At the same time, it seems doubtful that wo'-verbs with 'food' in the gloss derive from wol= < wo'te as an incorporand, though there may be some influenced from wol=. First, for the benefit of any non-Dakotanists (myself, anyway), in Dakotan as attested for Santee and Teton in the Riggs/Williamson-Buechel dictionary complex and in Ingham the form wo'yute is the nominal 'food', with yu'ta 'eat (trans.)' and wo'ta 'eat (intrans.)' as the verbal forms. For the benefit of the Dakotanists, the Omaha-Ponca pattern is somewhat simpler: dhathe 'to eat (trans.)', wadha'the 'to eat (intrans.); food'. It appears, however, that Dakotan wo'te 'food' does exist. Gilmore (1977), originally printed in 1914 lists the following plant names. Note that Gilmore's Linnaean binomials are generally out of date. "pispiza ta wote" (prairie-dog its-food) = Boerbera papposa 'prairie-dog fennel; fetid marigold' "zuzecha ta wote" (snake its-food) Celastrus scandens 'Bittersweet' "pte ta wote" (buffalo its-food) Geoprumnon crassicarpum 'Buffalo pea; ground plum' "h.eh.aka ta pezhuta, h.eh.aka ta wote" (elk its-medicine, elk its-food) Monarda fistulosa 'Horsemint' "zuzecha ta wote sapsapa" (snake its-medicine black-here-and-there) Symphoricarpos sp. 'Coralberry; Buck brush' Somewhat similar formations: "maka ta omnicha" (earth its-beans) Falcata comosa 'Groundbean' "heyoka ta pezhuta" (contrary his-medicine) Malvastrum coccineum 'Red false mallow' "chap' ta haza" (p' = p + apostrophe) (beaver its-grape) Ribes americanum 'Wild black currant' In fact, a very similar set of forms occur in Buechel, etc. See, for example, the lists of flowers, etc., in the English index to Buechel. In most cases wote here might be better glossed as something like 'browse' or 'forage', or perhaps just 'animal food', so it is not surprising if the form doesn't appear as 'food'. The fact that it doesn't appear in its own right at all may mean that it is specialized vocabulary that has been missed or that it only occurs in longer forms at present. Students of vocabulary and cultural contact may notice that in many cases the English name is obviously a calque of the Dakota name. Now, let's consider the possibility that wo- as a prefix in forms with the gloss 'food' comes from wo'ta 'to eat (intrans.)' ~ wo'te 'food' ~ wol- 'food (combining form)'. The hypothesis here comes from Boas & Deloria (1941:71) as far as I am aware. They say (1941:70) "A number of nouns in abbreviated form (or their primary stems?) are used in compounds as classifiers. The consciousness of their derivation is not always clear as is proved by those cases in which the noun is obscured by metathesis. Examples are: waNsma'hi for mas-waN'hi (metal arrow tooth) 'iron arrowhead' ..." The on p. 71 they say "wo- food; --- wo'yute 'good'; wo'(wa)k?u '(I) give food'; -- wo'aya 'to take food to a guest'; -- wo'(wa)la '(I) ask for food'." Looking under wo- in Buechel, for example, yields: wo 'food', cf. wo'yute (i.e., a reference for the morpheme) wo'c^hiNpi 'begging, craving; hunger' wo'k?u 'to give food to' wo'la 'to beg food' wo'las?a 'a beggar' (wo'la=s?a) wo'luta 'the round of a beef animal when dried' wo'soso 'meat cut in strips or strings' (maybe not?) wo'sota 'to kill off, to kill all the game' (maybe not?) wo'yaptapi 'leavings, fragments of food' wo'yute 'food' Here I've omitted any food-related form in which wo- is plainly a locative, e.g., wo'haN 'to cook, to boil, to make a feast', i.e., 'to boil something in something'. The following forms actually have wol, although wo'lwota is a reduplicated form 'to eat (repeatedly)'. wo'lwota 'to eat' wol=i'glus^taN 'to finish eating' wo'l=wic^hayapi 'a banquet' wol=ya' 'to make a feast' This is not a large list. Unlike some other classificatory prefixes, all examples, involve verbs, or nouns derived from verbs. While it is tempting to regard some of the wo-not-wol as cases of wo- derived from wol- and there seems to be no real semantic obstacle to this, I have noticed an interesting thing. Most of the wo-forms have a corresponding o-form with a related gloss: wo'chiNpi ~ oc^hiN' 'to desire, beg, ask for' wo'k?u ~ ok?u' 'to give to, e.g., food; to give a portion to' wo'luta ~ o'lute 'thigh muscle' wo'soso ~ oso' 'to cut open' wo'sota ~ o'sota 'all gone, used up' wo'yaptapi ~ oya'pta 'to leave, have over and above what one eats' wo'yute ~ oyu'te 'eating, food' In short, the wo'- cases are all plausibly wa-indefinite object forms derived from an underlying locative in o. My impression is that while wo'- as a 'food' classifier might be influenced by the existence of wol-compounds from wo'te 'food (for animals)', what we really have etymologically is wo'- < *wa-o'- where an indefinite object is pragmatically a reference to food. This intepretation of wo'- is enhanced as suggested by Regina by the accentual pattern with wo'-, though compounds with wo'l= may also show initial accent. Different sorts of compounds show different accentual patterns. John E. Koontz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Thu Apr 28 13:21:38 2005 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:21:38 -0500 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguists: While you are on the topic of food. Can one of you explain why the men who serve the food (Tiyotipi and Peziwacipi) are called Touchers (Iyutanpi)? LouieG From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 13:43:12 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:43:12 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Padouca is not attested in the early Illinois Jesuit sources. However, Pierre Potier, a Jesuit missionary at Detroit, recorded a personal name of a Native American in the form , in the mid-1700s. This is also the name of southern Wabash River tributary. I have not seen this hydronym attested until the early 1800s, in English language reports. The Miami-Illinois attestation dates only to the turn of the 20th century. Michael McCafferty Quoting Koontz John E : > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: > > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > > > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the > Comanches. > > In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an > unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians > are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to > their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa > included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche > suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular > cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic > groups. > > >From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the > period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so > for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French > texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and > possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward > Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and > verse on the arguments these days. > > A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern > Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the > reference remains "Northern Caddoan." > > The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round > head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and > assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been > borrowed from French. > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Apr 28 14:29:07 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:29:07 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. This name *is* listed in the synonymy for the Comanche in HNAI 13. Dave > Padouca is not attested in the early Illinois Jesuit sources. However, Pierre > Potier, a Jesuit missionary at Detroit, recorded a personal name of a Native > American in the form , in the mid-1700s. > > This is also the name of southern Wabash River tributary. I have not seen this > hydronym attested until the early 1800s, in English language reports. > > The Miami-Illinois attestation dates only to the turn of the 20th century. > > Michael McCafferty > > > Quoting Koontz John E : > >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: >> > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. >> > >> > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the >> Comanches. >> >> In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an >> unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians >> are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to >> their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa >> included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche >> suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular >> cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic >> groups. >> >> >From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the >> period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so >> for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French >> texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and >> possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward >> Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and >> verse on the arguments these days. >> >> A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern >> Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the >> reference remains "Northern Caddoan." >> >> The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round >> head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and >> assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been >> borrowed from French. >> >> > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 14:52:41 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:52:41 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <42702E19.3070202@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des > Padoucas". > > Alan That would indicate that the French distinguished the Padoucas from the Apaches by 1718. The Padoucas were certainly known directly to the Pawnee and the lower Missouri Valley Siouan tribes, who were at war with them around this time. I understand that the French even encouraged a slave trade of which Padoucas were among the main victims. The French became established on the middle Mississippi, in the area around the Ohio and Missouri River mouths from the time of the Marquette-Jolliet expedition of 1673. They chose the Osage on the Missouri as their primary allies in that direction. In 1724, Bourgmont made his celebrated and officially well-supported expedition west up the Kansas River to meet the Padoucas and make peace with them to allow French traders to cross the Plains to trade with the Spanish of New Mexico. So the period in which the French became acquainted with the Padouca as an ethnic group can probably be bracketed between 1673 and 1724, or about half a century. I think the question is whether the Padouca were known by that name to other Indian nations far and wide across the continent, and continuously down to the time that vocabularies were collected, such that the Algonquian groups mentioned by David provide independent evidence of the original meaning of "Padouca", or whether the "Padouca" name was used primarily by Caddoans and Siouans of the lower Missouri region, from whom the French picked it up around 1700, and the Miami, Shawnee, Sauk and Mesquakie after about 1846. I was thinking that the Algonquianists might know of earier written records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that they might be able to tell by internal evidence among these groups. Rory From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 15:45:49 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:45:49 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I might have missed something in this Padouca discussion. What language does the word come from; what's the etymology? Michael Quoting Rory M Larson : I was > thinking that the Algonquianists might know of earier written > records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that they might be > able to tell by internal evidence among these groups. Like I said earlier today, it's not in the early Illinois material, as far I as know. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:07:21 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:07:21 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114649535.427033bfa6ad2@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Good catch, Ardis! I got this off a web site for the town: The site was chosen by George Rogers Clark during the Revolution and the first settlers probably arrived around 1821. The early settlement was known as Pekin. In 1827 the town was laid out by Clark's brother William who selected the name Paducah to honor the legendary Chickasaw leader, Chief Paduke (or it may be the name of a group of Comanches known as the Padoucas). I'm inclined to suspect that the Chickasaw Chief Paduke is probably the basis for the name here. In any case, it seems to be an arbitrary name, like one would expect the founders of a town to come up with. If it does refer to the Padoucas, it is probably coming through the English of the western frontier, and not through local Algonquian. Rory are2 at buffalo.edu Sent by: owner-siouan at list To s.colorado.edu siouan at lists.colorado.edu cc 04/27/2005 07:52 Subject PM Re: Padouca Please respond to siouan at lists.colo rado.edu For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) That's a bit East. > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > des > Padoucas". > > Alan > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:28:04 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:28:04 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114703149.4271052d9e750@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: > I might have missed something in this Padouca discussion. What language does > the word come from; what's the etymology? > > Michael We don't know the language or etymology, but it is probably from lower Missouri Siouan, perhaps Osage or Iowa-Oto. John had a couple of good paragraphs on it: > From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the > period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so > for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French > texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and > possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward > Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and > verse on the arguments these days. > > [...] > > The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round > head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and > assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been > borrowed from French. The /pa/ part would probably be 'head', or 'nose'. The "douca' part might be Osage duka, 'wet', or doNka, 'short and stubby, like a bear's tail'. (La Flesche Osage dictionary) I don't know if that is what John has in mind for his suggested gloss 'round'; I don't recognize it otherwise. John? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:39:04 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: > For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, > Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. > However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an > Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would seem to provide support for the view that the name was widespread and the concept well known to speakers of native languages across much of the country. Do we have any sense of what the context of use might have been for the Indiana speaker? I.e., local east-of- the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via communication with Oklahoma relatives? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 16:56:02 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:56:02 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > The /pa/ part would probably be 'head', or 'nose'. The "douca' part > might be Osage duka, 'wet', or doNka, 'short and stubby, like a bear's > tail'. (La Flesche Osage dictionary) I don't know if that is what > John has in mind for his suggested gloss 'round'; I don't recognize it > otherwise. John? Yep, something like ppatoNkka. But that could amount to forcing an unrecognized [paduka] or [padoka] into a recognizable shape and transparent etymology, like English crayfish < French ecrevisse. Over the years we've seen a number of similar processes in contemporary Siouan languages as people struggle to explain various obscure terms. Nature abhors a vaccuum, and we her children abhor opaque words. The thing to bear in mind is that once a term was in circulation in French and later English, it could be reintroduced from French (or English) into Siouan and Algonquian languages. In short, there is no secure etymology for Padouca (or for Pawnee). I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it now, the term is attested for MI only in modern times. I did wonder if it might be possible to make something of Osage ppadoNkka 'stubby head' and some of the other attested terms for the Comanche that Doug lists, including 'bald heads' (in French) and thahiN (deer hair) (in Dakota). Perhaps these are all reference to a particular way of cutting the hair, a sort of crew cut? I've never heard of anything like that, however. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Apr 28 16:57:07 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:57:07 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: It's really not easy to tell, but there are indications in the historical records that the Illinois and Miami did go on buffalo hunts into the Great Plains west of the Mississippi. And the Miami-Illinois speaking peoples had names for many other tribes that they never lived anywhere near, like the Yuchi, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Stockbridge, Tuscarora, and Pawnee. My opinion is that Midwestern/Great Lakes tribes were tremendously mobile prior to the 1700's, much more than we now realize. Dave > David wrote: >> For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, >> Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. >> However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an >> Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. > That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would seem to > provide support for the view that the name was widespread and the concept well > known to speakers of native languages across much of the country. Do we have > any sense of what the context of use might have been for the Indiana speaker? > I.e., local east-of- the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via > communication with Oklahoma relatives? > Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 17:04:50 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:04:50 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would > seem to provide support for the view that the name was widespread > and the concept well known to speakers of native languages across > much of the country. Do we have any sense of what the context of > use might have been for the Indiana speaker? I.e., local east-of- > the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via communication > with Oklahoma relatives? I could be wrong, but my suspicion would be that terms known from Indiana could perhaps be attributed to French-moderated social intercourse within the French province of "the Illinois" and its subsequent French, Spanish, and American "the Missouri," Generally speaking, in both cases, the situation in the 1700s-early 1800s in St. Louis and environs. On the other hand, terms from Oklahoma could reflect English-moderated social intercourse in "Indian Territory" from c. 1840 or so on. Some of the same ethnonyms - Padouca, (A)Kansa, etc. - seem to occur in different senses and somtimes different forms in the two contexts, and consequently change meaning over time, noticeably so in the case of groups participating in both contexts. Unfortunately, in both cases, unless a form is attested clearly early on, it's not easy to refer it to a pre-Contact period. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 18:15:20 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:15:20 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty > definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after > the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame > for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly > good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it > now, the term is attested for MI only in modern times. I seem to recall that the Plains Apache were pushed out and replaced by the Commanche at some point, but I couldn't remember quite when. I take it that happened about 1750? However, this information makes it a little harder to interpret the item given earlier by Alan: > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des > Padoucas". Apparently Padoucas were distinguished from Apaches as early as 1718. Would these have been separate tribes of Apache speakers at that time? Also, we've been discussing the "Padouca" term from the east so far. What about the southwest? Did the Spanish record any such name? Rory From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 18:40:37 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:40:37 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One more brief thought: This name is also seen in the Illinois Country in the 1700s. I would have to dig around, but I'm pretty sure there was a Marie Padouca at Kaskaskia, among a few others with this name. Michael Quoting Rory M Larson : > Good catch, Ardis! I got this off a web site for the town: > > > The site was chosen by George Rogers Clark during the Revolution and the > first settlers probably arrived around 1821. The early settlement was > known as Pekin. In 1827 the town was laid out by Clark's brother William > who selected the name Paducah to honor the legendary Chickasaw leader, > Chief Paduke (or it may be the name of a group of Comanches known as the > Padoucas). > > > > > > I'm inclined to suspect that the Chickasaw Chief Paduke is > probably the basis for the name here. In any case, it seems > to be an arbitrary name, like one would expect the founders > of a town to come up with. If it does refer to the Padoucas, > it is probably coming through the English of the western frontier, > and not through local Algonquian. > > Rory > > > > > > are2 at buffalo.edu > Sent by: > owner-siouan at list To > s.colorado.edu siouan at lists.colorado.edu > cc > > 04/27/2005 07:52 Subject > PM Re: Padouca > > > Please respond to > siouan at lists.colo > rado.edu > > > > > > > For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know > this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) > That's a bit East. > > > > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > > we > > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > > des > > Padoucas". > > > > Alan > > > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 19:45:10 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:45:10 -0500 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: Nobody knows, and it doesn't have one. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Padouca >I might have missed something in this Padouca >discussion. What language does > the word come from; what's the etymology? > > Michael > > Quoting Rory M Larson : > > I was >> thinking that the Algonquianists might know of >> earier written >> records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that >> they might be >> able to tell by internal evidence among these >> groups. > > Like I said earlier today, it's not in the early > Illinois material, as far I > as know. > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 20:03:47 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:03:47 -0500 Subject: Padouca. Message-ID: Well, now that we haven't solved the Padouca question, does anybody know anything about the Iatan matter? Inquiring minds want to know. I forgot to see if it was mentioned anywhere in the various synonymies in HNAI. I was also wondering just when the Comanches became really separate from the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much earlier than the period we're talking about. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 20:24:25 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:24:25 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114713637.42712e258adc7@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 mmccaffe at indiana.edu wrote: > This name is also seen in the Illinois Country in the 1700s. I would have to > dig around, but I'm pretty sure there was a Marie Padouca at Kaskaskia, among > a few others with this name. Yes, I's sure I've seen names like that in Nasatir or Houck. Also, in pointing to the difficulties of separating out direct transmission of ethnonyms between Native American groups and via mediating languages like French, I didn't mean to imply that I doubted that the first could occur, or that connections might not be far flung. Pre-Contact trading connections and simple information exchange were probably at least as big a factor in this as hunting expeditions. Direct trade between Native American groups remained important after contact, though I think some elements of it may have disappeared. The Comanche are particularly associated with the horse trade, and the Osage traded both slaves and horses. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 20:28:12 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:28:12 -0600 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <007501c54c2d$67735c60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > Well, now that we haven't solved the Padouca question, does anybody know > anything about the Iatan matter? Inquiring minds want to know. I > forgot to see if it was mentioned anywhere in the various synonymies in > HNAI. I did look. Doug Parks did the synonymy for the HBNAI Plains Volume chapter on the Comanche. He says the origin and etymology of Laytane ~ Naytane ~ Ietan (spelling from memory) are unknown. He discusses Padouca at length. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Apr 28 20:55:42 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:55:42 -0500 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <007501c54c2d$67735c60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: R. Rankin wrote: > I was also wondering just when the Comanches became really separate from > the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much earlier than the > period we're talking about. Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders from Illinois and Louisiana." Alan From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 21:29:53 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:29:53 -0500 Subject: Padouca. Message-ID: Thanks to you and John for looking up things that I couldn't remember to do when I was at the office today! Well, it looks like the Comanches separate from the other Numic tribes just about the time our mystery terms start appearing in the literature. All I can say about Iatan is that I think it likely that this Otoe chief probably got into a fight with a (Comanche??) chief or group with the Iatan name, beat them and took the name as a trophy. That would be my best guess anyway. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan H. Hartley" To: Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Padouca. > R. Rankin wrote: > >> I was also wondering just when the Comanches became >> really separate from >> the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much >> earlier than the >> period we're talking about. > > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem > to say. He does say > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including > the ancestors of > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since > the 1500s", and > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the > Plains Apacheans > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico > and the Plains... > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations > with French traders > from Illinois and Louisiana." > > Alan > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 23:01:25 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:01:25 -0500 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <42714DCE.9000900@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: John wrote: > I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty > definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after > the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame > for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly > good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it So "Padouca" originally referred to the Plains Apache, but shifted to mean 'Commanche' after about 1750, when the latter ousted the former. But Alan writes: > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders > from Illinois and Louisiana." which implies that displacement of the Plains Apache by the Commanche took place a generation earlier, by the 1730s. The beginning of direct trade relations between the Padouka and the French can be dated to the Bourgmont expedition to the Padoukas in 1724. The last sentence in Alan's paragraph suggests that Kavanaugh is regarding the Padoucas with whom Bourgmont opened friendly relations as Commanches, not Apaches. If he is right, we might consider the following scenario. In the early 1720s, just before Bourgmont leads his expedition west to meet the troublesome Padouca (Plains Apache), the original bearers of that name are locally defeated by the Commanches, who at that time are known as Hayaton/Layaton/Ayatan, or whatever. Bourgmont's mission for France is to meet and make peace with the Padouca, who are cordially hated by all the eastern Plains tribes who are France's allies. Previous attempts to contact them have failed, owing to the opposition of the latter groups. But when Bourgmont sets out, avenues open for him, and some of these eastern Plains tribes even sent representatives to accompany him. He meets, not the original Padouca, but a group of Commanches flush with victory over their enemies and more than eager to establish an alliance and trade with the French and their Indian allies. The expedition is a resounding success, and it is entirely to Bourgmont's interest to represent his new allies as Padouca to his French patrons, in fulfillment of the mission he had been assigned. From this time forward, the Commanches are the Padouca from the French point of view. Moreover, with the material advantages they gain through trade with the French, the Commanches are able to consolidate their original victory and drive out the Plains Apache altogether. Linguistically, this would explain the ambiguity in the meaning of the name as used by the French, but the Indians might be slower to adopt the confusion. Hence, a term for the Commanche that came directly through Iowa-Oto would still be Ayaton, the name by which that group was originally known to the Iowas and Otos. This hypothesis is admittedly a large cloth woven with scanty material, and Alan's earlier mention of a distinction between Apaches and Padoucas from a few years before Bourgmont's expedition provides a snag upon which it could tear. Still, I think a model somewhat like this would explain a lot. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 22:52:05 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:52:05 -0500 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. Message-ID: All, I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red men) 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = wi-tcha'-sha red man 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha Indians, people = We-shota Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in Riggs's Dakota) + sha 'red'? Is this a commonly accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota after all? I pass these comments and questions on to you in the hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. Bob From wablenica at mail.ru Thu Apr 28 23:35:31 2005 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Constantine Chmielnicki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:35:31 +0400 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. In-Reply-To: <004d01c54c44$e764d7c0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: We should also count in Assiniboin "wiNc^ha's^ta" In Albert White Hat Jr. "Reading and writing the Lakota language" (1999) the "red-man" hypothesis is also stated. Can it be folk etymology like S^ahiyela for Cheyenne (S^a-(h)-iyA-la, red-talk-little)? Interestingly, there are more examples of D. s^t -> L. s^ change : es^(t)a, "although", toks^(t)a ( All, RR> I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian RR> asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', RR> variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was RR> looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the RR> word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found RR> that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' -sha RR> 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: RR> 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = RR> wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red RR> men) RR> 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden RR> 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = RR> wi-tcha'-sha red man RR> 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha RR> Indians, people = We-shota RR> Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha RR> as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in RR> Riggs's Dakota) sha 'red'? Is this a commonly RR> accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the RR> language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an RR> arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? RR> What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? RR> Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota RR> only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota RR> somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota RR> after all? RR> I pass these comments and questions on to you in the RR> hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. RR> Bob -- Best regards, Wablenica mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 29 00:51:43 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:43 -0600 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > So "Padouca" originally referred to the Plains Apache, but shifted to > mean 'Commanche' after about 1750, when the latter ousted the former. > But Alan writes: > > > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say > > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of > > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and > > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans > > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... > > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders > > from Illinois and Louisiana." HBNAI (same article) indicates that for a time the two groups coexisted and that Padouca continued mostly to refer to the Apache as opposed to the Comanche. I gather the changeover must have been gradual. It's probably best for us all to read the article and some of the references for details and concentrate on linguistic issues here! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 29 01:29:05 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:29:05 -0600 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. In-Reply-To: <004d01c54c44$e764d7c0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian asking about the > Dakota term for 'man, person', variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney > wiNcha. He was looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the > word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found that 'wichasha' was > analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha 'red' = red-man or Indian. I guess there's no reason why wic^ha-s^a 'man-red' wouldn't work analytically, though I'd feel better if I could explain the variants wic^hasta, etc., in the same breath. However, the two variants, plus the use of incorporated wic^ha- as the third person plural animate object marker both suggest a compound wic^ha-s^a. Wic^ha- as a pronominal here seems to replace wa- INDEFINITE OBJECT, THIRD PERSON ANIMATE PLURAL OBJECT in other Mississippi Valley groups. In addition, there's precedent in the historical period for 'red man' as a term for Native Americans in, e.g., Omaha-Ponca. On the other hand, I suspect wic^has^a/wic^hasta/etc. are a lot older than Contact, though I don't know what the earliest attestation would be. Native Americans would probably not have any reason to consider themselves in terms of some uniform labelling color-term before encountering other hues of men (outside the aboriginal range), and the perception of their own varied hues as red is fairly arbitrary. One possibility that occurs to me is that wic^has^a is a punning substitution for wic^hasta. It's only in Teton, right? This would have to be one heck of a succcessful pun, however. Can anyone think of any similar successful pun? Is there any evidence for a shift from wic^hasta to wic^has^a in the historical period? A suggestion I've offered in the past is that wic^haSta is from *wiyaS- -a (theme formant) or ta (no ideas). I'd actually expect wic^haz^a in this case, however. The *wiyaS- root here resembles OP waz^az^e < *wayas^-e 'Osage', though wi- < *wa-i- INDEF-MEANS differs from simple wa- INDEF. There is a root *yaS- 'name', cf., OP iz^az^e 'name', Da c^haz^e' 'name'. I think I went over the details of this on the list once a while back, and they could be found by searching in the list archive at http://www.linguistlist.org. > 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha > Indians, people = We-shota I haven't run into wis^ota. I suppose the construction could be made into wi-s^ota ??? smokey. The *s^ot- root is perhaps related by fricative grading to *xot- 'gray'(Da s^ota, xota, OP s^ude, xude). If you look at Dhegiha forms, which as far as 'person' proper aren't cognate, you'd expect second elements in 'person' compounds to be something meaning 'little', cf., nikkas^iNga, s^iNgaz^iNga, etc. As far as -sta, could this be a fricative-grading variant of -xta in the sense 'real, true'? From jurga at ou.edu Fri Apr 29 04:44:28 2005 From: jurga at ou.edu (jurga at ou.edu) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:44:28 -0500 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. Message-ID: Bob, Here is Lakota scholar and speaker Albert White Hat's (Rosebud Sioux Reservation) analysis of "wic^as^a": Wic^a, "a male"; s^a, "adornment". "S^a" is a short form of s^aic^'iye, "to dress up". Buechel (1983:460) translates s^aic^'iye as "to paint one's self red" or "to dress well". Albert's interpretation of the word focuses not on the color red, but on the aspect of maturity and responsibility that the adornment implies for the male. According to him, the term wic^as^a implies a position of honor which he achieves through exhibiting the maturity of his actions. References: Buechel, Eugene. 1983. Lakota-English Dictionary. Ed. by Paul Manhart. Pine Ridge, SD: Red Cloud Indian School. White Hat, Albert, Sr. 1999. Reading and Writing the Lakota Language: Lakota Iyapi un Wowapi nahan Yawapi. Ed. by Jael Kampfe. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Jurga ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" Date: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 pm Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. > All, > > I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian > asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', > variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was > looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the > word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found > that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha > 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: > > 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = > wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red > men) > > 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden > 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = > wi-tcha'-sha red man > > 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha > Indians, people = We-shota > > Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha > as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in > Riggs's Dakota) + sha 'red'? Is this a commonly > accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the > language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an > arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? > > What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? > > Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota > only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota > somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota > after all? > > I pass these comments and questions on to you in the > hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. > > Bob > > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 1 05:57:17 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:57:17 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> As far as I had understood this issue, it's the dative structure, i.e. the personal affix pointing to the "receiver": sunkawankan kin mni wicak'u (he gave water to the horses) - right? <<<< > (David) That's the way it works in languages that have datives for recipients. Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the recipient of the verb 'give': (...) << I'd be interested in examples of other languages. >'give' is syntactically transitive, not ditransitive; only two participants are indexed in the verb, and one of them is the recipient. The so-called accusative or direct object is not an argument. I would not call 'horses' in your example an indirect object in Lakhota -- it's clearly the direct object, from the point of view of the grammar of that language. Lakhota has unambiguous datives marked with -ki-, but this verb doesn't make use of them. << 1) I'd state that the very "idea" of "to give" actually is dative (although there are other - special - verbs for it that are not, e.g. German: "beschenken" -> accusative, etc.). 2) Moreover, I'd suspect that _k'u_ in Lakota is a somewhat unusual form actually having the dative particle _-ki-_ built in (*ki-u -> k'u, phonetically maybe similar to _k'un_ <- *kin un). 3) That's what I found at B. Ingham's: wicacic'u [wicha'chic?u] given as "I gave you to them". Also: wicanic'u [wicha'nic?u] translated as "They gave you to them "in marriage)" (which I'd expected to be wicanic'upi, instead). Maybe Bruce will comment on this? Alfred From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Apr 1 07:58:17 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:58:17 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> (David) That's the way it works in languages that have datives for >> recipients. Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the >> recipient of the verb 'give': (...) << > I'd be interested in examples of other languages. In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: waapamita 'he looks at me' miilita 'he gives (it) to me' Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on a third person object: waapamaka 'I look at him' miilaka 'I give (it) to him' If you want to force a meaning like 'I give him to you', with an overt animate object, you have to mark the animate entity being given by using an inalienably-possessed noun that means 'body, self'. Thus, 'I give him to you' would literally be 'I give you his body/himself'. You can see how semantically this wouldn't be common. David C. From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 1 17:41:44 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:41:44 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> I'd be interested in examples of other languages. <<<< >In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: waapamita 'he looks at me' miilita 'he gives (it) to me' Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on a third person object: waapamaka 'I look at him' miilaka 'I give (it) to him'<< Thanks for this explanation. So I grasp that there are different markings to (somewhat generically) indicate that there's an indirect object (which also covers dative). In Dakota, the ki-verbs also express more than just dative - even in the sense of "back again", e.g. (wa)ki'ni - (I) revive; Kini Anpetu - Resurrection/Easter Day; kiska' to fade, lit. to return to an original white color; kiche'pa to become fat again, e.g. waki'chepa-wi June, moon of things getting fat again. As for _k'u_ in Dakota, I'd tend to see it as a - special form of a - ki-verb or a dative-verb sui generis. So I'm very reluctant to call the recipient of _k'u_ (e.g. the horses in sunkawakan kin mni wicak'u) a direct/accusative participant. (???) (BTW, would it make any difference to give it as "Wicasa kin mazaska eya wicak'u"?) Alfred From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 1 18:19:09 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:19:09 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424D87D8.6030109@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred, please be careful about Lak. "ki". There are several different morphemes, showing up in different places in the verb, and having different phonologies. The ki- that means 'again' or 'become' that you cite is not the dative or the possessive; it has different grammatical properties. It's much more like the instrumental prefixes than the dative/possessive, though we never seem to list it among the instrumentals. More examples of your morpheme are "kiwas^ic^u" 'turncoat; a Lakhota who is trying to be White" and "kiLakhota" "a White persoon who is trying to behave like a Lakhota" (both terms derogatory). David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > >> I'd be interested in examples of other languages. <<<< > > > >In all Algonquian languages, whenever an object is marked on the verb > 'give', it always represents the recipient. There's no way to mark the > verb 'give' for the actual thing being given. > > So for example, in Miami, which is completely typical, /-ita/ is an ending > marking a third person subject acting on a first person object: > > waapamita 'he looks at me' > miilita 'he gives (it) to me' > > Likewise, for /-aka/, an ending marking a first person subject acting on > a third person object: > > waapamaka 'I look at him' > miilaka 'I give (it) to him'<< > > > Thanks for this explanation. > So I grasp that there are different markings to (somewhat generically) > indicate that there's an indirect object (which also covers dative). In > Dakota, the ki-verbs also express more than just dative - even in the > sense of "back again", e.g. (wa)ki'ni - (I) revive; Kini Anpetu - > Resurrection/Easter Day; kiska' to fade, lit. to return to an original > white color; kiche'pa to become fat again, e.g. waki'chepa-wi June, moon > of things getting fat again. > > As for _k'u_ in Dakota, I'd tend to see it as a - special form of a - > ki-verb or a dative-verb sui generis. So I'm very reluctant to call the > recipient of _k'u_ (e.g. the horses in sunkawakan kin mni wicak'u) a > direct/accusative participant. (???) (BTW, would it make any difference > to give it as "Wicasa kin mazaska eya wicak'u"?) > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Fri Apr 1 18:31:55 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:31:55 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424C15C7.70604@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Pam, Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. When there is morphology to make the distinction, e.g. "the chiefs gave the horses to the women", women will be indexed, and horses will not. Contrast the causatives, which have the morphological tools for expressing three arguments: I made you buy the horses can be s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if something is an "argument" or not, and I agree that all my instincts tell me that the direct object in English should also be an argument in Lakhota. I just think the internal structure of the language denies that. I think linguistic description (theory?) should distinguish grammatical (subject, object) categories from semantic (agent, patient) ones. David David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > David, > > Of course I agree with you that Lakhota 'give' only marks two arguments > on the verb. But can you explain why you feel the patient (I agree with > you that it doesn't seem right to call it either an accusative or a > direct object) is not an argument? Is there syntactic evidence that, for > example, in a sentence with three nouns ('The chief gave the horse to > the woman', or the like) the patient ('horse') behaves syntactically > different from 'woman'? > > Pam > > ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > >Many languages, like Lakhota, do not use datives for the recipient of the > >verb 'give': 'give' is syntactically transitive, not ditransitive; only > >two participants are indexed in the verb, and one of them is the > >recipient. The so-called accusative or direct object is not an argument. > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Fri Apr 1 20:08:36 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:08:36 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks! Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is semantically and syntactically completed with three associated "participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) So I think that 'give' is a ditransitive verb, myself, with three arguments, but I would just say that in Lakhota only two arguments at most can be indexed on the verb. (In English, we only index one argument on the verb!) Pam ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Hi, Pam, > Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive >behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. When there is morphology >to make the distinction, e.g. "the chiefs gave the horses to the women", >women will be indexed, and horses will not. Contrast the causatives, >which have the morphological tools for expressing three arguments: I made >you buy the horses can be s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. > I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if >something is an "argument" or not, and I agree that all my instincts tell >me that the direct object in English should also be an argument in >Lakhota. I just think the internal structure of the language denies that. >I think linguistic description (theory?) should distinguish grammatical >(subject, object) categories from semantic (agent, patient) ones. > David > David > > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rankin at ku.edu Fri Apr 1 20:31:55 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:31:55 -0600 Subject: Lakota time keeping. Message-ID: I thought I'd pass on information from the journal _Science_ (25 Mar. '05, p. 1847). While it isn't exactly linguistics, it may be of interest to readers of the list. The Smithsonian Institution has as website illustrating several Lakota Winter counts from the 18th and 19th centuries. These can be viewed at: www.wintercounts.si.edu. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 20:39:10 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:39:10 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424CE2BD.5070407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > I'd be interested in examples of other languages. The within-verb prefixal arguments are pretty much the same in all Mississippi Valley Siouan (MVS). I'm not sure about further afield. As far as I know the potential to mention the patient - "the thing transferred" - as a nominal argument within the clause is also constant across MVS. Within Omaha-Ponca I don't know of syntactic phenomena distinguishing 1) the behavior of nominal patients and recipients of 'give' or dative verbs, or 2) distinguishing arguments and non-arguments (other than prefix concord or presence of postpositions), or 3) associating one or the other with the objects of simple transitives. Postpositions may not be distinctive of non-arguments. I know of some cases of nouns with the akha/ama article (notmally for proximate subjects) but also having postpositions. And I think some more peripheral (locative) nouns may be goverened by locative prefixes. These are areas in which I haven't looked in Dhegiha. Ardis or Catherine may have. > 2) Moreover, I'd suspect that _k'u_ in Lakota is a somewhat unusual form > actually having the dative particle _-ki-_ built in (*ki-u -> k'u, > phonetically maybe similar to _k'un_ <- *kin un). I've suggested this as a possibility, too, but it would have to be way before Dakotan, because *k?u 'give' has reflexes throughout Siouan. Somewhat off the track, but ditto for the *?-stems like *?uN that you mention, though, ironically, in most languages these have non-ejective phonology. I think not all of them are ejective even across Dakotan. In fact, the k?- and uNk?-forms in Dakotan ?-stems and the Winnebago second persons in s^-?- in ?-stems are the only forms of *?-stems with ? that I can recall, and I tend to believe that ? in these forms that have it is secondary. The original inflection pattern seems to have been first person *m-, second person *y-, which look like prevocalic variants of *wa- and *ya-. There is considerable intrusion of second persons in *(s^)-n- from nasalized *r-stems in the ?-stem inflection, e.g., in Dakotan, where n- (< s^-n- (?)) occurs in the second persons of ?-stems. Given Dhegiha z^- < *y- I'd expect Dakotan *c^h-. k From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 21:06:15 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:06:15 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, David Costa wrote: > If you want to force a meaning like 'I give him to you', with an overt > animate object, you have to mark the animate entity being given by using an > inalienably-possessed noun that means 'body, self'. Thus, 'I give him to > you' would literally be 'I give you his body/himself'. You can see how > semantically this wouldn't be common. Exactly. This is where I'd expect one of the Omaha speakers I worked with to start hemming and hawing and regretfully offering rephrasings like "I caused him to have you" or "I said you should marry him," explaining "that's the way we would say it." In Omaha-Ponca (and I think in MVS generally) the patient of 'give' has to be a third person. It's OK to have a nominal element in the clause for a third person "argument" that the verb doesn't agree with (or, better, doesn't represent with a prefix), but that class of "argument" cannot be a non-third person. I'd better say also that I think that having this sort of non-concordial or non-represented "argument" is restricted to particular verbs. There are at least these kinds of verbs that allow (or imply) an additional non-concordial or non-represented "argument": 1) ditransitive verbs like ?i (< *k?u) (not many) 2) dativized verbs (with gi- < *ki) (maybe not all of these) 3) what I've been calling dative subject verbs with stative concord, like dhiNge 'to lack' 4) what I've been calling dative subject verbs with dative concord, like git?e 'one's own to die' I have no idea whether it's reasonable to call these non-represented "arguments" arguments in particular approaches to grammatical theory. Descriptively it makes sense to call them arguments, but they are not arguments in the canonical Siouan sense of being potentially represented as pronominal prefixes. Of course, only certain plural third persons normally produce a representation in the verb, and except perhaps for Dakotan wic^ha- most of these representations of third person plural act more like marking of plurality or indefiniteness than marking of person. I'm trying to avoid saying "govern agreement," because I think agreement implies some sort of secondariness, whereas Siouan personal prefixes seem to be the main pronominal reference, not agreement with an independent pronominal. Independent pronominals, when they occur, are emphatic or contrastive or deictic (in non-personal terms). From okibjonathan at yahoo.com Fri Apr 1 21:07:35 2005 From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:07:35 -0800 Subject: Lakota time keeping. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Should you have an interest in Lakota Wintercounts, you might also be interested in seeing the online available Ring Bull Winter Count from archives at Buechel Memorial Lakota Museum in St. Francis, South Dakota, with translations by Linea Sundstrom, Ph.D. The web-site can be found by going to: http://www.sfmission.org/museum/exhibits/wintercounts/ringbull.shtml The following is an introduction from the site: "This winter count is quite similar to that of Iron Shell, published in The Sioux, by Royal Hassrick; however, it has some years that are different from Iron Shell?s. A Miniconjou or Brule authorship is most likely, based on the similarities to Iron Shell?s account. My notes are in brackets; Buechel?s notes are in parentheses, as they appear on the original. I have not attempted to put the spelling into any of the standard Lakota orthographies. Buechel recorded two versions of each year name?that originally taken down and a later revision. In other words, two copies of the winter count are on file in the Buechel archives. These are both given in the list below The third line of each entry is my translation. I have used the symbol 'h' for the 'dotted h' used in Buechel?s orthography, because my word processing program does not have the dotted h." -- LS 1808-09 1. Cega cica wan c?n kante. Cega cinca wan c?n kate. Kettle?s child was killed by a tree. 1809-10 2. Capa cika ti ile. C?pa cika ti ile. Little Beaver?s house burned. [This was a white trader, probably Loisel.] 1810-11 3. Sinte wa ki?ju aglipi. Sinte aki?ju aglipi. They brought back horses with decorated tails. 1811-12 4. Waniyetu wica akiran. (9 Cloud Shield?s) Waniyetu wica akik?an. The people were starving in winter. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ "R. Rankin" wrote: I thought I'd pass on information from the journal _Science_ (25 Mar. '05, p. 1847). While it isn't exactly linguistics, it may be of interest to readers of the list. The Smithsonian Institution has as website illustrating several Lakota Winter counts from the 18th and 19th centuries. These can be viewed at: www.wintercounts.si.edu. Bob --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 21:22:45 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:22:45 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Thanks for the question. To my way of thinking, the decisive > behavioral property is the indexing on the verb. "Indexing" is the word I was looking for, I think, where I cobbled together an expedient "representing." I think it's been suggested that languages which select the "higher ranked" object (recipient over patient) be called "primary object languages," the primary object being the recipient if specified or specifiable and the patient otherwise. However, I'm not sure this is much more than a more an expanded terminology for "case marking/agreement" patterns. It labels the pattern, but doesn't explain anything. > Contrast the causatives, which have the morphological tools for > expressing three arguments: I made you buy the horses can be > s^uNkawakhaN ki ophewichathun-chiye. Does it seem fair to say that causatives can do this because they have two stems to attach indexing morphology to? Also, is the case that the kind of indexing morphology allowed with the embedded stem (here ophe..thuN) is restricted to third person marking? If so this may be a way of demonstrating that third person (plural) marking is different in character from non-third person marking - less inflectional, more derivational. Dakotan is a bit of a special case because of wic^ha-, but my inclination in Dhegiha is to see parallel uses of wa- as a "third person plural object" as a sort of drafting of the derived indefinite object form as an indexed form. > I can't think of any purely syntactic tests for deciding if > something is an "argument" or not, .... Me either, though I'm guiltily aware that this may be because I haven't looked. It's something of a relief that your more sophisticated and extended investigations of Lakota also leave you without any ready instances of such tests! Does anyone else have any suggestions? kk From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 1 22:04:27 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:04:27 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DAA44.1020809@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which > is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in > fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't > freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is > semantically and syntactically completed with three associated > "participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when > talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of > the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject > of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not > just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew > any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the "experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). From munro at ucla.edu Fri Apr 1 22:26:47 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:26:47 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal (third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi -- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be called subcategorization.) Pam Koontz John E wrote: >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > >>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which >>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in >>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't >>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is >>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated >>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when >>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of >>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject >>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not >>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew >>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) >> >> > >I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be >used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, >by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or >participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb >Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If >non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, >statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the >"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and >said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 2 01:44:35 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:44:35 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DCAA7.4060803@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of fun. The kind of verb you're asking for (only 3rd person singular argument possible, not phonomenological) seems like it'd be hard to come by in any language -- can you provide a possible example from English or some other language you know? All I can think of would be the modal-like verbs like iyecheca 'necessary' or nachece 'maybe', which take propositions as their "subjects". Or maybe an intransitive that cannot have an animate argument, so "pi" would be impossible -- e.g. do plants 'grow' or 'die' with a different verb than do people? Two minutes of research in Ingham gives a verb "uya" for 'to grow (longer), as hair'; back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Are there any speakers of Lakhota out there who can comment on this word? Does it ever take a plural "subject"? And if not, what does that tell us? The morphology of third singular won't reveal anything about whether or not that "subject" is an argument. More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by "argument". I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be Lakhota-specific; I think you have to find criteria for grammatical argument status one language at a time. And as John said, (I think), my example with three arguments for the causative works only because there are two verb stems involved. I have no objection to claims that the logical structure of 'give' universally includes three entities, but I do object to the hypothesis that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" or "indirect" in all languages. Given that _k'u_ can take only two affixes at most, and that one is the giver and the other the recipient, I still claim that the third "entity" involved is not part of the core argument structure of this verb in this language. I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, and has only one argument, logic or no logic. Maybe my structuralist upbringing is leaking through here (I learned lingusitics first from Charles Hockett), but I need concrete evidence for grammatical structures before I accept them, and Lakhota "k'u" only shows two entities, even if other things are hanging around in the vicinity. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly > as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to > supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some > intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal > (third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, > not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one > where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi > -- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this > case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would > want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked > as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to > show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of > arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be > called subcategorization.) > > Pam > > Koontz John E wrote: > > >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > > > > >>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which > >>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in > >>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't > >>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is > >>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated > >>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when > >>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of > >>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject > >>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not > >>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew > >>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) > >> > >> > > > >I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be > >used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, > >by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or > >participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb > >Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If > >non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, > >statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the > >"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and > >said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 01:59:23 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:59:23 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for playing along with this, David -- I'm very glad to learn about these verbs. A modal type of thing like 'necessary' or 'maybe' doesn't really fit what I'm thinking about, precisely because you want (naturally) to put "subject" in quotes with that. But the other types are just the kind of thing I was thinking of. To give you another possibility, how about a verb that takes a mass inanimate as a subject (e.g. something that might be true of 'water' or 'sand'...)? I want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that I agree with you 100% that it's odd to say that 'give' takes indirect objects universally. I don't want you to think at all that this is what I (or, I would guess, John) was getting at. What seems to me to be true is that verbs like 'give' in languages like Lakhota (and a variety of other languages) take two objects, only one of which may show agreement on the verb -- but that both of them are syntactically objects. My suggestion that you cannot freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences (you cannot randomly have additional things "hanging around in the vicinity", in your words) was designed to show that even though the (semantic) patient (the "second object", if you like that term) does not agree with the verb, it still has a role in the sentence, and (personally) it makes it sense to me to call it an argument. (Though certainly others might define that term differently.) This seems like pretty strong structural evidence to me. I don't see anything particularly "indirect" about either of these objects; anyone who would use this term is simply trying to apply Indo-European style terminology in a case where it doesn't fit too well. The recipient is clearly the "first object". I agree with you about your 'eat' example, too. I'd say that English 'eat' may be either intransitive (as in your example) or transitive. ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even >though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim >that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of >fun. > The kind of verb you're asking for (only 3rd person singular >argument possible, not phonomenological) seems like it'd be hard to come >by in any language -- can you provide a possible example from English or >some other language you know? All I can think of would be the modal-like >verbs like iyecheca 'necessary' or nachece 'maybe', which take >propositions as their "subjects". Or maybe an intransitive that cannot >have an animate argument, so "pi" would be impossible -- e.g. do plants >'grow' or 'die' with a different verb than do people? Two minutes of >research in Ingham gives a verb "uya" for 'to grow (longer), as hair'; >back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing >up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" >which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, >but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Are there any speakers of Lakhota >out there who can comment on this word? Does it ever take a >plural "subject"? And if not, what does that tell us? The morphology of >third singular won't reveal anything about whether or not that "subject" >is an argument. > More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by >"argument". I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be >Lakhota-specific; I think you have to find criteria for grammatical >argument status one language at a time. And as John said, (I think), my >example with three arguments for the causative works only because there >are two verb stems involved. I have no objection to claims that the >logical structure of 'give' universally includes three entities, but I do >object to the hypothesis that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" >or "indirect" in all languages. Given that _k'u_ can take only two >affixes at most, and that one is the giver and the other the recipient, I >still claim that the third "entity" involved is not part of the core >argument structure of this verb in this language. > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we >eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to >eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, >and has only one argument, logic or no logic. > Maybe my structuralist upbringing is leaking through here (I >learned lingusitics first from Charles Hockett), but I need concrete >evidence for grammatical structures before I accept them, and Lakhota >"k'u" only shows two entities, even if other things are hanging around in >the vicinity. > David > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > > > >>Hm, maybe I have another argument against defining "argument" narrowly >>as "what can be marked on the verb". My Lakhota isn't ready enough to >>supply an example, but I would certainly guess that there are some >>intransitive verbs out there that can take only a singular nominal >>(third person) subject. (I want one that can take a nominal subject, >>not, say, a phenomenological verb that takes no subject, but I want one >>where said subject is incompatible with plurality, so we can't get -pi >>-- maybe I'm reaching, but I would guess there are such verbs.) In this >>case (if such a verb exists), we have a verb that I think everyone would >>want to say has one argument (the subject), but where nothing is marked >>as subject on the verb. In other words, it seems to me that ability to >>show marking on the verb need not be directly related to the number of >>arguments a verb takes. (I think that's a matter of what used to be >>called subcategorization.) >> >>Pam >> >>Koontz John E wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Well, if you define "argument" as "something marked on the verb" (which >>>>is fine, and I thought might be the case), this seems fine -- but in >>>>fact, I think there are other ways to go. For instance, you really can't >>>>freely add random nouns to Lakhota sentences. I think k'u really is >>>>semantically and syntactically completed with three associated >>>>"participants" (to choose a different term, which I often use when >>>>talking with people who will be confused by "argument). I think each of >>>>the three is fully as much a part of the sentence as, say, the subject >>>>of an intransitive -- thus, I think this is a structural feature, not >>>>just a semantic one. (I thought this before, but wondered if you knew >>>>any obscure syntactic tests I was unaware of.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I agree with this. I'm not really sure how the term argument should be >>>used, and I don't want to do violence to accepted usage for it. However, >>>by restricting themselves historically to seeing only the arguments (or >>>participants) defined by the canonical property of indexing in the verb >>>Siouanists have been missing several important categories of verbs. If >>>non-indexed arguments are considered, then we don't have just actives, >>>statives, and transitives, we also have ditransitives like k?u and the >>>"experiencer subject" pattern(s). (I just slipped a letter or so up and >>>said "dative subject" where I meant "experiencer subject"). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>Pamela Munro, >>Professor, Linguistics, UCLA >>UCLA Box 951543 >>Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 >>http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm >> >> >> >> > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcumberl at indiana.edu Sat Apr 2 07:04:09 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 02:04:09 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even > though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim > that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of > fun. Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions in the clause: wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. (I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, so if I'm wrong, tell me now!) Linda From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 07:19:14 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:19:14 -0800 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: Ah, truly interesting. My own feeling is that predicate nominals in fact are not arguments (they aren't really meaningful referential entities, but rather part of the predicate) -- but this is an excellent case to discuss. Pam lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: >Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > >>Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even >>though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim >>that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of >>fun. >> >> > >Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. > >It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. hecha). >It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions in the clause: > >wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > >Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > >z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the >second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. > >(I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, so if I'm >wrong, tell me now!) > >Linda > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 15:46:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 09:46:26 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > I think it's been suggested that languages which > select the "higher > ranked" object (recipient over patient) be called > "primary object > languages," the primary object being the recipient if > specified or > specifiable and the patient otherwise. Matt Dryer has a paper on this but I'm uncertain whether he is author of the primary/secondary object hypothesis. Bob From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sat Apr 2 17:39:53 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:39:53 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424E4772.7050500@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Linda, that is indeed an interesting suggestion. I agree with Pam that in languages like English, with heavily used copulas, predicate nominals are predicates, not arguments. Are you in a position to investigate hecha (or e) a little more? I'm not sure whether it's really a copula, or a verb of identification (is there a difference?). What happens if you're planning a prank with role substitution, and you need to say "I'm going to be you, and you be me" (note English "me", by the way)? I'm going to guess it'd have to be "niye hemacha kte, miye henicha kte" and not *hemayacha or, abosultely out, *hechicha. Actually, I bet the more likely construction would be niye (cha?) miye kte, which would confirm the "predicate" analysis -- but I don't know what might happen if you force the use of "hecha". Pam, as for "other things hanging around" not being arguments, I think I would continue to believe that happens, on the basis of prepositional "things hanging around" that are often required (but not random) as part of the semantic structure of a verb. English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the prerequisite for calling something an argument? I think the selectional restrictions on Lak. verbs (maybe in all languages) have two layers: core, which are syntactically identifiable somehow (Lak. potentially indexed on the verb if there is morphology for the task), and others that may be required or optional. The reason for making the distinction is just so you can identify what must be indexed and what cannot be indexed. Now, is that circular? I don't think so, if the goal is to specify the syntactic requirements of verbs in their lexical entries. Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a variable for individual verbs. That may not be right, or it may be that the more reasonable device would be to say that Lak. has some indirect object verbs and some two-object verbs. (The latter has been claimed for the few German verbs that take two accusatives, for example, like lehren 'teach' (Er hat mich die Sprache gelehrt) 'he taught me the language' or kosten 'cost' (das hat mich keinen Pfennig gekostet 'that didn't cost me a cent'). So to go back where this started: I'm still going to maintain that Lakhota k'u 'give' takes only two arguments, plus an obligatory adjunct. I don't think the "secondary object" idea adds anything to this problem in this language. I guess I would then have to say that hecha takes only one argument, plus an obligatory predicative nominal, and uya 'grow; sprout' (if I've got the facts right) takes one argument with certain restricted properties. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Ah, truly interesting. My own feeling is that predicate nominals in fact > are not arguments (they aren't really meaningful referential entities, > but rather part of the predicate) -- but this is an excellent case to > discuss. > > Pam > > lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > > >Quoting ROOD DAVID S : > > > > > > > >>Pam, I'm not quite sure that this is a very important discussion, even > >>though I started it (one of my pet peeves, for years, has been the claim > >>that 'give' takes indirect objects universally). However, it's kind of > >>fun. > >> > >> > > > >Well, I think it's important, and quite timely for me. > > > >It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. > >hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal > >expressions in the clause: > > > >wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > > > >Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > > > >z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb > >in the second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. > > > >(I've said so in the soon-to-be-pried-from-my-reluctant-hands grammar, > >so if I'm wrong, tell me now!) > > > >Linda > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Apr 2 18:02:18 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:02:18 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, predicate) "to eat" is defined as: eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). So one is free to express: citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not eat up the meal I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform in). In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special endings to make it specific. E.g. Szeretek k?nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) Szeretem a k?nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) Olvasok k?nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) Olvasom (a) k?nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: Szereted ?t/?ket - You love him, her, it/them Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek (t?ged/titeket)!" (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi?nyoz - to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi?nyzol!" - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the werb, i.e. "chi f?n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 18:22:13 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:22:13 -0600 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. Message-ID: Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure of k?u. I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) Bob From munro at ucla.edu Sat Apr 2 21:14:21 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:14:21 -0800 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. In-Reply-To: <003b01c537b0$e55e6e30$10b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Sorry to be obscure! In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes sense that when one dines food is involved. Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can give you a Chickasaw one. In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only two of these. Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to others!) Pam R. Rankin wrote: > Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and > morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the > effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The > quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home > computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure > of k?u. > > I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what > its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this > restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be > fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might > be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? > > Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also > thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept > the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the > nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know > what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) > > Bob > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rankin at ku.edu Sat Apr 2 23:04:59 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 17:04:59 -0600 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. Message-ID: Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" To: Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > Sorry to be obscure! > > In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two > nouns, e.g. "John" and > "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb > like "dine", we > can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined > bread". (Yes, you > can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do > it in a > prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's > what I mean by > "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd > phrase, but I'm just > trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You > can't freely add > "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though > semantically it makes > sense that when one dines food is involved. > > Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one > ordinary noun > phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some > with two, and some, > like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a > Lakhota example of a > verb that seems semantically as though it should take > more associated > nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for > that), but I can > give you a Chickasaw one. > > In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's > intransitive -- it is not > possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was > hunted (like 'deer') > no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like > English 'dine'.) > > Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun > phrases (neither in pre- > or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case > markers) a verb > can be associated with is its number of arguments. I > feel that this > shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not > necessarily > associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I > pointed out that in > English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or > 'eat' is transitive > (though both can also be used intransitively, as > David pointed out), > even though the English verbs inflect only for their > subject, never for > their object. As David noted, that is a > language-specific fact. So, in > contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may > have three > arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person > and number of only > two of these. > > Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't > think that whether one > accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll > leave that matter to > others!) > > Pam > > R. Rankin wrote: > >> Excuse a question from someone who has always done >> more phonology and >> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one >> of postings to the >> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan >> sentences." (The >> quote is inexact because I don't have the message >> here on my home >> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the >> argument structure >> of k?u. >> >> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what >> this means and what >> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me >> an example of this >> restriction, especially compared to some language >> (English would be >> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, >> whatever they might >> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? >> >> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something >> here. (And I'm also >> thinking about how this whole discussion might play >> out if you accept >> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. >> Then all the >> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm >> curious to know >> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) >> >> Bob >> > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 00:08:15 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:08:15 -0800 Subject: k?u and related argument problems. In-Reply-To: <001f01c537d8$6630e070$1eb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Absolutely. A verb's valence refers to its number of arguments, I'd say! R. Rankin wrote: > Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as > "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM > Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > > >> Sorry to be obscure! >> >> In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and >> "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we >> can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you >> can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a >> prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by >> "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just >> trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add >> "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes >> sense that when one dines food is involved. >> >> Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun >> phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, >> like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a >> verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated >> nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can >> give you a Chickasaw one. >> >> In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not >> possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') >> no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) >> >> Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- >> or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb >> can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this >> shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily >> associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in >> English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive >> (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), >> even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for >> their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in >> contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three >> arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only >> two of these. >> >> Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one >> accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to >> others!) >> >> Pam >> >> R. Rankin wrote: >> >>> Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and >>> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the >>> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The >>> quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home >>> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure >>> of k?u. >>> >>> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what >>> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this >>> restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be >>> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might >>> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? >>> >>> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also >>> thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept >>> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the >>> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know >>> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) >>> >>> Bob >>> >> >> -- >> Pamela Munro, >> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA >> UCLA Box 951543 >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 >> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm >> >> >> > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 02:30:21 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:30:21 -0700 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <424EDE2A.3000303@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: Alfred, In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > > > > Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > > In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > > eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > > which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > So one is free to express: > > citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > eat up the meal > > I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > in). > > In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > > In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > endings to make it specific. > E.g. > Szeretek k?nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > Szeretem a k?nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > Olvasok k?nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > Olvasom (a) k?nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > > Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > Szereted ?t/?ket - You love him, her, it/them > Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > (t?ged/titeket)!" > (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi?nyoz - > to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi?nyzol!" > - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > > > Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > werb, i.e. "chi f?n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > > > So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > > > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Sun Apr 3 02:50:27 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:50:27 -0800 Subject: transitivity of eat?? Message-ID: In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all three stems are suppletive. Dave C -----Original Message----- From: ROOD DAVID S Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: transitivity of eat?? Alfred, In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > > > > Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > > In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > > eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > > which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > So one is free to express: > > citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > (the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > [zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > eat up the meal > > I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > in). > > In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > (a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > > In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > endings to make it specific. > E.g. > Szeretek k?nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > Szeretem a k?nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > Olvasok k?nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > Olvasom (a) k?nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > > Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > Szereted ?t/?ket - You love him, her, it/them > Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > (t?ged/titeket)!" > (These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi?nyoz - > to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi?nyzol!" > - you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > > > Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > werb, i.e. "chi f?n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > > > So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > "we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > > > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 03:21:20 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:21:20 -0700 Subject: A test for the valence of Lakhota verbs? In-Reply-To: <424F33EF.7080604@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Yes!! Thanks, Bob and Pam, for clarifying that; I should have thought of that term myself, since I also teach about "valence". A verb's valence refers to the number of arguments it can take, but to reiterate what I was babbling about this morning, I think there are two kinds of valence: core and something else (I don't even have a name for the others). Thus I would hold that English "put" has a valence of two (I put something) in the core, but nevertheless requires a third participant in the form of a locative. Would the rest of you use valence this way, or say that "put" has a valence of three, one of which must be locative? And now I've thought of a Lakhota test for core valence: what does the wa- 'indefinite' prefix do when added to the verb? I will repeat an example I've used many times -- sorry if this is old news to anyone -- that the verb iyuNga 'to ask someone something' has a valence of three. Besides this, there is the form wiyuNga, with the wa- prefix, which means 'to inquire about'. The "wa" has replaced the "someone" argument, reducing the verb's valence from three to two. There is also a third form, wawiyuNga, meaning something like 'go around asking lots of questions; be nosy'. The second wa- has replaced the "something" argument of the original verb, and now we're down to an intransitive. So the test would be: what (besides 'I gave it to him/her') does "wak'u" mean? Does "wa-" delete the recipient and leave the other object, perhaps something like 'donate (something)'? Or does it delete the equivalent of the English direct object and mean 'I gifted him/her'? And is there a "wawak'u" meaning something like 'be generous' or 'give stuff to people'? If so, then I will concede defeat and admit that _k'u_ has three arguments; if not, I think I may have found an objective argument for the position I've been trying to justify. Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (I assume that's his spelling of wawichak'u). If that's what I think it, is, then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed on the verb. I hope there is a speaker on the list with enough patience to read through this and help us. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Absolutely. A verb's valence refers to its number of arguments, I'd say! > > R. Rankin wrote: > > > Ah, OK, thanks, Pam. I assume we're talking about what I teach as > > "valence" then. I wasn't sure. Bob > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pamela Munro" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:14 PM > > Subject: Re: k?u and related argument problems. > > > > > >> Sorry to be obscure! > >> > >> In English, with a verb like "eat" we can use two nouns, e.g. "John" and > >> "bread": we can say "John ate bread". But with a verb like "dine", we > >> can't: we can say "John dined", but not "*John dined bread". (Yes, you > >> can put "bread" in the sentence, but you have to do it in a > >> prepositional phrase, "John dined on bread".) That's what I mean by > >> "adding random nouns", which may have been an odd phrase, but I'm just > >> trying to avoid theory-specific terminology. You can't freely add > >> "bread" to a sentence with "dine", even though semantically it makes > >> sense that when one dines food is involved. > >> > >> Thus, in Lakhota, some verbs are associated with one ordinary noun > >> phrase (not part of a postpositional phrase), some with two, and some, > >> like k'u 'give', with three. I can't give you a Lakhota example of a > >> verb that seems semantically as though it should take more associated > >> nouns than it does (my Lakhota isn't ready enough for that), but I can > >> give you a Chickasaw one. > >> > >> In Chickasaw, owwatta means 'hunt'. But it's intransitive -- it is not > >> possible to add a noun phrase specifying what was hunted (like 'deer') > >> no matter how much you want to. (Thus, it's like English 'dine'.) > >> > >> Thus, I consider the number of non-oblique noun phrases (neither in pre- > >> or postpositional phrases or marked with oblique case markers) a verb > >> can be associated with is its number of arguments. I feel that this > >> shows that the number of arguments a verb has is not necessarily > >> associated with the inflectional pattern it takes. I pointed out that in > >> English we'd certainly say a verb like 'hunt' or 'eat' is transitive > >> (though both can also be used intransitively, as David pointed out), > >> even though the English verbs inflect only for their subject, never for > >> their object. As David noted, that is a language-specific fact. So, in > >> contrast, in Lakhota (and also Chickasaw) a verb may have three > >> arguments, but it can be inflected to show the person and number of only > >> two of these. > >> > >> Anyway, that's what I was trying to say. (I don't think that whether one > >> accepts the PAH really matters for this, but I'll leave that matter to > >> others!) > >> > >> Pam > >> > >> R. Rankin wrote: > >> > >>> Excuse a question from someone who has always done more phonology and > >>> morphology than syntax. Pam wrote something in one of postings to the > >>> effect that "you can't just add nouns in Dakotan sentences." (The > >>> quote is inexact because I don't have the message here on my home > >>> computer -- sorry.) This was in reference to the argument structure > >>> of k?u. > >>> > >>> I guess I'm having a little trouble picturing what this means and what > >>> its implications are. Could Pam or anyone give me an example of this > >>> restriction, especially compared to some language (English would be > >>> fine) in which you *can* add such forbidden nouns, whatever they might > >>> be (but wouldn't be able to in Dakotan)? > >>> > >>> Sorry to be so thick, but I'm missing something here. (And I'm also > >>> thinking about how this whole discussion might play out if you accept > >>> the 'pronominal argument hypothesis' for Siouan. Then all the > >>> nominals would be something like adjuncts, and I'm curious to know > >>> what the restrictions on such adjuncts might be.) > >>> > >>> Bob > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Pamela Munro, > >> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > >> UCLA Box 951543 > >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > >> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 03:32:10 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:32:10 -0800 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <24638163.1112496627554.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Chickasaw (and most other Muskogean) also has two 'eat' verbs, intransitive impa and transitive apa. (These look similar, but there is no regular relationship between them.) The first has one arguments, the second two. It's interesting how common this is! (I'm not completely sure what you mean by a "covert object", David. Is this an object that can appear if the speaker wishes to specify it? A non-agreeing object, like the patient of 'give'? Or a semantically implied object, if I can use that term, like what is eaten with English 'dine'?) Pam david costa wrote: >In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that >takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat >him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all >three stems are suppletive. > >Dave C > >-----Original Message----- >From: ROOD DAVID S >Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: transitivity of eat?? > > >Alfred, > In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an >object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call >people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) >with the intransitive verb. > An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. >Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? > I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. > David > > >David S. Rood >Dept. of Linguistics >Univ. of Colorado >295 UCB >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 >USA >rood at colorado.edu > >On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > > >>>I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we >>> >>> >>eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to >>eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, >>and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << >> >> >> >>Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most >>Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view >>on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" >>being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but >>kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) >> >>In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, >>predicate) "to eat" is defined as: >> >>eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 >> >>which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an >>indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). >>So one is free to express: >> >>citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed >>(the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some >>cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) >>mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) >>le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice >>[zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not >>eat up the meal >> >>I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all >>arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are >>defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that >>this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform >>in). >> >>In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word >>sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to >>(a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by >>context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation >>of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). >> >>In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be >>transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special >>endings to make it specific. >>E.g. >>Szeretek k?nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) >>Szeretem a k?nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) >>Olvasok k?nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) >>Olvasom (a) k?nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) >> >>Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: >>Szereted ?t/?ket - You love him, her, it/them >>Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me >>So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" >>with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the >>expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek >>(t?ged/titeket)!" >>(These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi?nyoz - >>to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi?nyzol!" >>- you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) >> >> >>Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct >>object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the >>werb, i.e. "chi f?n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). >> >> >>So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's >>grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in >>"we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( >> >> >> >> >>Alfred >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From munro at ucla.edu Sun Apr 3 03:39:54 2005 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:39:54 -0800 Subject: A test for the valence of Lakhota verbs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While 'put' requires a locative, it's an interesting question whether everyone will call that locative an argument, since it is oblique. I like your notion of "core valence" vs. some-other-kind-of valence. But in fact I'd say that the patient of Lakhota 'give' is part of core valence, even though it does not agree, while the locative with 'put', though required, seems less argument-like (to moi). The wa- test is very interesting! I'll be interested to hear how this comes out. Pam ROOD DAVID S wrote: >Yes!! Thanks, Bob and Pam, for clarifying that; I should have thought of >that term myself, since I also teach about "valence". A verb's valence >refers to the number of arguments it can take, but to reiterate what I was >babbling about this morning, I think there are two kinds of valence: core >and something else (I don't even have a name for the others). Thus I would >hold that English "put" has a valence of two (I put something) in the >core, but nevertheless requires a third participant in the form of a >locative. Would the rest of you use valence this way, or say that "put" >has a valence of three, one of which must be locative? > And now I've thought of a Lakhota test for core valence: what does >the wa- 'indefinite' prefix do when added to the verb? I will repeat an >example I've used many times -- sorry if this is old news to anyone -- >that the verb iyuNga 'to ask someone something' has a valence of three. >Besides this, there is the form wiyuNga, with the wa- prefix, which means >'to inquire about'. The "wa" has replaced the "someone" argument, >reducing the verb's valence from three to two. There is also a third >form, wawiyuNga, meaning something like 'go around asking lots of >questions; be nosy'. The second wa- has replaced the "something" argument >of the original verb, and now we're down to an intransitive. > So the test would be: what (besides 'I gave it to him/her') does >"wak'u" mean? Does "wa-" delete the recipient and leave the other object, >perhaps something like 'donate (something)'? Or does it delete the >equivalent of the English direct object and mean 'I gifted him/her'? And >is there a "wawak'u" meaning something like 'be generous' or 'give stuff >to people'? If so, then I will concede defeat and admit that +AF8-k'u+AF8- has >three arguments; if not, I think I may have found an objective argument >for the position I've been trying to justify. > Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to >people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in >Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (I >assume that's his spelling of wawichak'u). If that's what I think it, is, >then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic >patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for >the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed >on the verb. > I hope there is a speaker on the list with enough patience to read >through this and help us. > > > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Sun Apr 3 03:55:52 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:55:52 -0700 Subject: transitivity of eat?? In-Reply-To: <424F63BA.5090605@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Sorry, Pam, I was using "covert" in a non-technical way to mean the supposed object that some people (even authors of intro lingusitics textbooks) claim is ALWAYS there with 'eat'. I don't think most people would claim that 'dine' has such an object, ever. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > Chickasaw (and most other Muskogean) also has two 'eat' verbs, > intransitive impa and transitive apa. (These look similar, but there is > no regular relationship between them.) The first has one arguments, the > second two. It's interesting how common this is! > > (I'm not completely sure what you mean by a "covert object", David. Is > this an object that can appear if the speaker wishes to specify it? A > non-agreeing object, like the patient of 'give'? Or a semantically > implied object, if I can use that term, like what is eaten with English > 'dine'?) > > Pam > > david costa wrote: > > >In Algonquian, the transitivity of 'eat' is very simple -- there is a stem that > >takes inanimate objects ('eat it'), another stem that takes animate objects ('eat > >him'), and yet another stem that's intransitive (plain 'eat', 'dine'). Moreover, all > >three stems are suppletive. > > > >Dave C > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ROOD DAVID S > >Sent: Apr 2, 2005 6:30 PM > >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > >Subject: transitivity of eat?? > > > > > >Alfred, > > In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an > >object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call > >people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) > >with the intransitive verb. > > An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. > >Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? > > I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. > > David > > > > > >David S. Rood > >Dept. of Linguistics > >Univ. of Colorado > >295 UCB > >Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > >USA > >rood at colorado.edu > > > >On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > > > > > > > >>>I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > >>> > >>> > >>eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > >>eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > >>and has only one argument, logic or no logic. << > >> > >> > >> > >>Yes, "logic or no logic" ;-) I assume that you refer to English (or most > >>Indo-European) grammar, otherwise this would be a somewhat biased view > >>on the matter. (I'm unsure whether or not this distinction of "to eat" > >>being two verbs, one transitive and one intransitive, is nothing but > >>kind of psycho-linguistic speculation.) > >> > >>In Lojban (le logji bangu = the logic language) e.g. the "selbri" (say, > >>predicate) "to eat" is defined as: > >> > >>eats citka (cti): x1 |/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2 > >> > >>which expands to zo'e (cu) citka zo'e (zo'e=the obvious value of an > >>indefinite unspecified sumti, say, argument). > >>So one is free to express: > >> > >>citka - smb (obvious/unexpressed) eats smth/smb(!) obvious/unexpressed > >>(the second zo'e-slot actually can also refer to a human e.g. in some > >>cannibalistic invironment ;-) ) > >>mi pu citka [zo'e] - I ate (smth. unspecified) > >>le mlatu cu citka loi ratcu - the cat(s) eat(s) mice > >>[zo'e] na mu'o citka le sanmi - smb. unspecified doesn't/didn't/will not > >>eat up the meal > >> > >>I.e. in Lojban - logically/grammatically - there are always all > >>arguments present (although maybe unexpressed/unspecified) that are > >>defined as pertaining to the selbri (predicate). I tend to assume that > >>this actually reflects "nature" (space and time human utterances perform > >>in). > >> > >>In Dakota language (grammar)also, parts of speech (verbs=one-word > >>sentences), if transitive (I'd say by their "nature"), always point to > >>(a) definite participant(s) (albeit unspecified and understood by > >>context). So sometimes there's need to make them generic (by affixation > >>of _wa-_, which maybe might derive from _wan_?). > >> > >>In Hungarian, it is kind of the other way around: any verb able to be > >>transitive by "nature" has a basic form that is generic and special > >>endings to make it specific. > >>E.g. > >>Szeretek k?nyveket - I love books (generic direct object) > >>Szeretem a k?nyveket - I love the books (specific direct object) > >>Olvasok k?nyvet - I read a book (generic direct object) > >>Olvasom (a) k?nyveimet - I read my books (specific direct object) > >> > >>Only 3rd person pronouns are regarded as specific, but not 1st p.p.: > >>Szereted ?t/?ket - You love him, her, it/them > >>Szeretsz engem(et) - You love me > >>So, the well-known question is usually expressed simply by "Szeretsz?" > >>with the direct object implied/understood: Do you love me? (And the > >>expected answer has a special form for 2nd p s/pl: "Szeretlek > >>(t?ged/titeket)!" > >>(These implied objects also work with "datives": e.g. Nekem hi?nyoz - > >>to-me s/he, it-lacks -> I miss him/her/it, but also simply: "Hi?nyzol!" > >>- you-lack (to-me) -> I miss you!) > >> > >> > >>Chinese "to eat" (chi) actually is transitive and needs to have a direct > >>object: not unlike in Dakota, kind of generic object has to go with the > >>werb, i.e. "chi f?n" (lit.: to eat "rice", rice=generic word for food). > >> > >> > >>So, my conclusion might be that at least it depends on each language's > >>grammar - and, nontheless, I'm quite hesitant with regard to "eat" in > >>"we eat every afternoon at 4:00" not having an "implied direct object". :(( > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Alfred > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pamela Munro, > Professor, Linguistics, UCLA > UCLA Box 951543 > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 > http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm > > From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Apr 3 10:44:53 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:44:53 +0200 Subject: transitivity with eat/argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (David) In Wichita there are two verbs to eat, one used when there is an object (ka'ac), and one when there is none (wa:wa'a). When you call people to dinner, you say "We're going to eat now" (ke'ecira:kwa:wa'a) with the intransitive verb. An English verb with a similar argument structure is 'to dine'. Do you think that, too, has a covert object??? I do not think that 'eat' in English always implies an object. << David (and all participants of this thread), thanks for your highly interesting contributions that actually are shedding light on this quite complicated issue. As for 'dine' (German: 'dinieren'), I don't think so! Same with German 'kneipen' ('Korpsstudenten'-Slang), 'bechern', 'zechen' - to booze. BTW, the 'to put' example's interesting: I don't think that the locative is 'core' argument here. What's about a verb 'put in/on/out etc.'? In German 'hineinlegen' (hinein legen?, ~ geben/tun), e.g. "Ich lege es hinein" (I put it in): uttering smth. like this, one, of course, does have smth. locative in mind, yet I don't think the 'place' is anything more than 'semantic background'. This seems to hold even more for verbs like 'einlegen' (e.g. a sheet of paper into a book/pile of papers etc. or gherkins/mixed pickles into a jar etc.): In a sentence like "Ich lege Gurken ein" the vessel (jar/glass) is about as 'immanent' as 'sunka (wakan)' in Lak. sentences of the kind "Wanna mitawa kin tehiya waku welo" - Now I've come home with my (horse) with great difficulty - or "Tawa kin hena luzahanpi" - Their (horses) are fast, and still, the locative doesn't appear to be an argument. Thanks again. Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Apr 3 13:01:49 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 15:01:49 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (David) Sigh. I'd like the question about "?wawak'u" 'give stuff to people' asked. But it's not going to be so simple. I just looked in Buechel, and discovered that the verb for 'make donations' is wawicak'u (...). If that's what I think it, is, then "wa" is replacing the thing I'm calling the adjunct, or the semantic patient, since "wicha", because it's animate, has to be standing in for the recipient(s). Now, in a sense, we do have all 3 participants indexed on the verb. << This is a very nice example, yet, I seem to be a bit thick-witted - sorry! You create a hypothetical model of k'u -> wak'u -> wawak'u (with the last one kind of meaning ?wawa-ma-k'u - I'm a giver of donations/I'm big-hearted/generous) to gain evidence that with two valences reduced and one still existent, the initial _k'u_ must have had three valences in total, okay? The one still left is pointing to the 'subject' (semantically speaking, the 'giver'), so one of the two other valences must have been that of the 'receiver'. Now, you actually find a somewhat different form with (almost) exactly this 'selbri' (argument structure), albeit one _wa-_ 'replaced' by _-wica-_ [wicha'] (which doesn't matter since - referring to humans - _-wica-_ has the same 'generic' function as _wa-_). That exactly was what we were looking for in order to give evidence for three markable arguments of the verb _k'u_. Shouldn't we be happy?! :)) (BTW, I'd still be eager to hear your opinions on B. Ingham's examples of "I gave you to them (in marriage)" etc.) Alfred From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 3 15:44:24 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:44:24 -0500 Subject: Valence of 'to place', or what is obliqueness? Message-ID: Lindsey Whaley, author of the typology textbook I've been teaching from, seems happy calling 'to place, put' trivalent. My students have occasionally wondered whether {locative} is equi-valent with {subj.} or {obj., and I have to confess I've never been able to answer the question even to my own satisfaction. You can argue from relative frequency of required locative arguments, in which case you probably feel that locatives are highly questionable as equal participants. Or you can argue from a more Boasian point of view that, while numbers favor having just 3 "core" valencies, languages can be quite unpredictable, and sometimes locatives must be admitted. Like David, I began my career as a Bloomfieldian -- more or less -- and I tend to favor the idea that "obliqueness" is a state of mind. And in some languages it may have to be part of the core. But maybe I just enjoy being iconoclastic. The origin of "oblique" is interestingly trivial. For many classical grammarians the nominative {subject} case was the "casus rectus" and was represented by a vertical line on a piece of paper (rectus = upright). The remaining cases were then represented by other lines slanting to the baseline at different degrees of inclination, so that the whole diagram was like looking down onto half of a pie that has been cut into slices. In other words, the lines representing the other cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and 'oblique cases'. In the Classical scheme of things, some cases were more 'oblique' than others, of course. But is there really a principled difference -- a principled dividing line -- among them? It's true that numerically some cases are more common than others, but none is necessarliy universal. How 'universal' is the core, really? Bob ----- Original Message ----- > BTW, the 'to put' example's interesting: I don't > think that the locative is 'core' argument here. From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 3 15:54:17 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:54:17 -0500 Subject: Oops. Message-ID: > In other words, the lines representing the other > cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus > rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the > angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and > 'oblique cases'. I see that ADJ.-DET. relationships are changing in my 66 year-old English. The above should read: "with the vertical casus rectus", NOT "with vertical the casus rectus" Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Apr 3 23:54:04 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:54:04 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > can you provide a possible example from English or some other language > you know? The only thing I can think of is epche 'I think' (Boas & Deloria 1941:102), but that a first person singular only, and the -p- is clearly pronominal, at least in comparative terms. Off hand, the patterns of defective verb I can recall from anywhere are all matters of missing tense/aspect forms or missing persons. I checked for some tace of this possibility in Bruce Ingham's Laokota Grammar without finding anything, either. > back checking with Buechel indicates that it's used for grain springing > up, and then the sentence example he gives is "tokiyatanhan uya hwo?" > which he glosses 'where does the wind come from?' -- so I'm very confused, > but maybe "uya" is a candidate. Sounds like a parallel of or calque from the English pattern "whence springs ..." I think this may have more to do with 'spring' in the sense of origin than of leaping, though it's ambiguous in Emglish. > More important, perhaps, is some agreement about what we mean by > "argument". Yes - it seems like this is more a matter of difference in terminology than a disagreeement on phenomena. > I intended my "marked on the verb" definition to be Lakhota-specific; I > think you have to find criteria for grammatical argument status one > language at a time. My impression is that the terminological issue would apply across Siouan, including the relatively different Crow-Hidatsa and Southeastern branches, but I wouldn't care to clain that treatment of non-indexed arguments (or whateve rthe term ought to be) would be the same. On the other hand, I have the impression that non-indexed arguments arise in non-Siouan languages in the area, including Algonquian and Muskogean. > I have no objection to claims that the logical structure of 'give' > universally includes three entities, but I do object to the hypothesis > that the recipient is in some sense "secondary" or "indirect" in all > languages. Agreed. This definitely doesn't seem to work for Dakotan or Dhegiha. > Given that _k'u_ can take only two affixes at most, and that > one is the giver and the other the recipient, I still claim that the > third "entity" involved is not part of the core argument structure of > this verb in this language. Everything here turns on the definition of core argument. I don't know of any arguments that the patient of k?u (or ?i, in OP) is core beyond the fact that it can occur, e.g., JOD 1890:75.11-12 hiN, s^ikkaN', wiN aNdha?i= tte= daN oh bro-wif one (raccoon) you give me IRREALIS CONTINGENT Oh! sister-in-law, would you give me one (of the raccons)? JOD 1890:87.15 z^iNdhe'=ha, s^aN'ge wiN wi?i' eBro VOC horse a I give you Brother, I am giving you a horse. In both cases, of course, the recipient is the form indexes with what I usually call the the patient marker: aN 'me' in the first case, and wi (like Da c^hi) indexes first person agent and second person patient. By the way, I've just noticed OP gi'?i 'to give back'~ > I run into similar problems when people claim that "eat" in "we > eat every afternoon at 4:00" has an "implied object" because you have to > eat something. I think it is purely intransitive in that kind of context, > and has only one argument, logic or no logic. I don't know if I'd say that English 'eat' is always transitive. I sort of assume it can be either, and is intransitive if there is no expressed object (unless gapping or something like it applies). I'm not so sure about OP dhathe or Dakota yuta. They might always be transitive. Looking for OP ?i 'give' wihtout expressed non-indexed patients, I've found JOD 1890:109.19-110.1 wappe'=khe iN'was^ta=m=az^i e'=d=e=gaN s^aN wi?i'= tta=miNkhe ha weapon the I cannot spare it "but" yet I give you it IRR AUX DEC I can't spare the weapon, but I will give it to you. Although wi?i' agrees with the recipient, it appears to be possible to gap the patient 'the weapon' across the two clauses. That is, there's nothing explicit in the verb that indicates the patient 'it', and there's no independent form indicating it either. As far as the conjunction "but" here, there are a variety of forms in e'=de that Dorsey renders "but," this one being e'=de plus e'gaN, the subordinating conjunction, which works somewhat like a conjunct mode in Algonquian, I think. Usually Dorsey translates egaN as "having." I think indicates that the preceding thing renders the next one surprising. It's more like English 'though' than English 'but'. Maybe a better parallel in construction would be: Though being unable to spare the weapon, yet I will give you it. Interestingly, I would much prefer to say 'give it to you' in English, perhaps because the focus here is clearly the weapon. JEK From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sun Apr 3 23:58:36 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:58:36 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424DFC7B.1000406@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pamela Munro wrote: > I want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that I agree with you 100% that it's > odd to say that 'give' takes indirect objects universally. I don't want > you to think at all that this is what I (or, I would guess, John) was > getting at. Definitely not. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 00:17:14 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:17:14 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > It occurs to me that there may be a similar problem with z^echa (Lak. > hecha). It's a stative verb but there are can be two nominal expressions > in the clause: > > wohena z^e-ma-cha 'I am a cook' > > Mary wohena z^echa 'Mary is a cook' > > z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the > second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. I agree with you, anyway. This seems to me to be rather different from the constructions you get in Omaha-Ponca, like JOD 1890:18.8 wanaN'ghi dhidhi'Nge=tta=i= the spirit you lack IRR PL EVID You will be without souls JOD 1890:495.9 ni'kkas^iNga=ama iNt?a= i people the me-died PL Relatives of mine have died but the general construction is similar - nouns are critically present that are not recognized in the verbs by indexing. As far as I know, these verbs never take more than one index, and it always the experiencer of the situation. Note, however, that "people" is marked as a subject (or as a proximate plural, anyway) in the second case, and that the verb is plural. Although we tend to think of plural marking as part of the same package as person marking, because in so many languages it is, I'm not sure it's at the same thing in Siouan languages. I believe the plural marking here (and eligibility for a proximate article, something only Dhegiha can offer as a diagnostic in the Siouan) show that 'the person who died' is in some sense an argument, though only eligible for singular/plural indexing, and not for person indexing. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 05:30:35 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 23:30:35 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <1112425449.424e43e963110@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > z^echa can only take one pronominal affix, so the structure of the verb in the > second sentence cannot be *z^e-0-0-cha. It occurs to me that you could consider z^e (or he) as indexing the second argument. Something similar occurs in verbs of speaking and thinking. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 06:20:18 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 00:20:18 -0600 Subject: Argument Terminolog Message-ID: Summarizing the argument terminology I've noticed: Core Core Not Core Indexed in Verb Not Indexed Not Indexed core argument argument adjunct participant participant Does anyone want to correct or augment this? John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 07:16:35 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:16:35 -0600 Subject: Omaha-Ponca Wa + 'give' Message-ID: I'm not sure this much help! The problem is that David Rood's wa-test has some issues outside of Dakotan, because something close to homophonous with wa- is used for the third person plural instead of wic^ha-. I tend to think that Dakotan has basically innovated wic^ha- as a sort of clarification or replacement of this third person animate plural usage. An incorporated noun has replaced a sort of pro-incorporated noun, if we regard wa- as a specific element meaning "the object is indefinite or unspecified" (often extended to third person plural) rather than as a more abstract "valence reducer." It appears that OMaha-Ponca doesn't use wa- as a non-specific object with ?i. Instead, you can omit any reference to a nominal patient and get what ammounts to a wa-effect. If wa- is actually present it seems to refer to third person plural recipients. However, it's often hard to tell. I don't find any examples with two wa's, where one might be an indefinite. Hypothetically, one doesn't need wa to omit a non-indexed argument? First off, there are cases where the thing given is a noun and the wa in the verb presumably is a third person plural recipient. I've picked examples in which wa- seems to clearly refer to the recipients, because the patient is singular. In many cases the patients and recipients are both plural and it would be hard to tell what wa- referred to (though wa- is not normally present if the object is given as a noun). JOD 1890:119.16 maNs^tiN'ge=dhaNkha wiN wa?i= ga rabbit the (pl) one give them IMP give (each of) them one of the rabbits JOD 1890:85.20 ttakkaN' s^i e'=kkina wa?i= bi=ama sinew again that many each they gave them PL QUOTE One oddball noticed in which wa- occurs with a noun-patient and a singular recipient. JOD 1890:279.10 hiNbe'= dhaN wa?u'z^iNga wa?i'= dhaN moccasins the old woman gave him the the moccasins which the old woman had given him In the following example I have the impression, from comparing the two clauses, that wa- refers to the beneficiaries, e.g., equates to Dakotan wic^ha-, e.g., I-to_them-gave. In other words, simply omitting references to nominal patients (things given) suffices to make them indefinite. Note that it is normal for a- 'first person agent' (like Dakotan wa-) to precede wa- (any wa-) in Dhegiha. JOD 1890:439.9-10 gaN aN?i=i e'gaN, wi'=s^ti e'adhadha awa'?i and they gave to me HAVING I too in various directions I gave And, they having given to me, I also gave things to various ones Note no wa- with 'they gave to me', suggesting the one with 'I have to them' is the recipient. Dorsey translates this, "As they had given something to me, I, too, gave presents all around." An ambivalent example in which I think wa- refers to the recipients, i.e., equates to wic^ha- because the recipients are clearly specified and seem to require indexing. JOD 1890:504.11-12 ukki'tte dhe s^aaN'= ama athi=i ha. nation this Dakotas the they-arrived-here DEC s^aN'ge wa'bdhiN e'=de waN'gidhe awa'?i. horses I had them "but" all I gave (to) them The Dakotas visited this nation. Though I had horses, I gave them all to them. Also ambiguous, but I think wa- is the recipients, because they are clearly specified. JOD 1890:644.15-16 ni'kkas^iNga waxpa'ni=s^te awa'?i= naN= maN person poor "so-ever" I gave to them HABIT I-AUX I used to give things to any poor person. In this cases the wa- is clearly the recipients, since the patient is singular and specific. JOD 1890:635.5 awa'?i= m=az^i I give it to them I not I did not give it to them Another fairly clear example, involving gapping: JOD 1890:635.6 maN'zeska wi'tta gdhe'ba ithe'=wikhidhe e'de, money mine ten I put it awway for you though witta'haN t?e', a'daN awa?i. my wifbro he died therefore I gave (it) to them I had saved ten dollars for you, but my wife's brother died, so I gave it to them (the family). John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 07:38:39 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:38:39 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put > something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that > verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the > prerequisite for calling something an argument? My inclination on this is that a required locative is indeed an argument, while an optional one is not. I think this amounts to Filmore's distinction of between central and peripheral obliques. This is the point at which many languages incorporate the adposition into the verb. I think it's also the one at which Siouan languages often allow indexing of the argument governed by a locative prefix, e.g., JOD 1890:61.6 aNdhaNna?u (i'..na?u 'pass close to') i-aN -na?u pass close to me (IMP) JOD 1890:165.11 aNdhaNdhikkaN (i'..kkaN 'to contend with') aN-i-dhi-kkaN we contend with you However, for what it's worth, locations don't seem to be mandatory with OP 'to put' forms, which may be one reason they have the alternate reading 'to put away'. > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and > does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely > marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. It was definitely Dryer's article I was remembering: DRYER, MATTHEW S. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62.808.45 (1986). > I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology > of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a > variable for individual verbs. ... That's what I recall, too. From wablenica at mail.ru Mon Apr 4 07:51:42 2005 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Constantine Chmielnicki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:51:42 +0400 Subject: thi + locative Message-ID: We could range the "arguments" of the verbs according to ability to take pron. affixes, detrasitivizing/absolutizing plugs (wa-/wicha-), and being obligatory/optional 1. +pron, +detr, +oblig - direct objects in vt, (yutA) indirect objects (recipients) (k'u) 2. -pron, +detr, +oblig - direct objects in vd (k'u) 3. -pron, -detr, +oblig - "obliques" in thi (locative), etuNwAN (direction), iyA (language - Lakxot(a)-, was^icu-, txok(a)-; or manner - loudly, slowly, etc.) 4. -pron, -detr, -oblig - adverbials of time, manner, or location in most verbs. Notes and questions. 1. thi requires locative, but in wathi kiN - "where I live; my home" it seemingly doesn't. How can this be explained? 2. what can be said about compounding verbs with some postpositions (as in Regina Pustet's article), when pronouns from the postpositional phrase shift to the verb, like e'l-mahi` ? 2. e'tuNwAN is used with adverbials of direction (ihukhul, waNkatuya, maxpiya ekta, NP el) in old texts but it looks that in modern usage it tends to do without them: ematuNwaN po! "look at me!" instead of el ematuNwaN po!. Thank you. Constantine. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 13:55:48 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 06:55:48 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for joining the discussion so late, but my weekend was rather busy. I have checked my grammar files, and in there the next-best thing to the hypothetical wawak'u etc. structures David would like to explore are the following examples: (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' However, in all three cases, a potentially valence-increasing locative prefix o- is present, which may explain the possibility of adding the direct object (patient) wa- 'things' to the verb, which also carries person affixes for the indirect object (dative/benefactive/recipient). In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This time we're looking at a bare k'u-verb which is inflected for both patient and recipient (and agent, of course). As for the valence issue, I recommend viewing things systematically from two angles: structure and semantics. On the structural side, a criterion that works very nicely is determining whether an argument (at least in non-passive/antipassive constructions) is omissible or not. Anything that's not omissible is part of the valence of a given verb. The "problem" here is that in some cases, arguments marked by obliques will end up in the valence frame. Locatives in 'put' and similar verbs are an example. Also the 'of'-phrase in 'devoid of'. You can't use this adjective without adding the of-phrase. Personally, I don't consider this a serious problem, so I would classify 'devoid' as transitive. There is literature on this, including some passages in my 2003 book on copulas. This brings us to the second criterion which has probably been used to define valence much more often, that of the semantics and other properties of the case markers involved. A "well-behaved" argument which is part of the valence frame of some verb better be either a subject/agent, direct object/patient, or at least an indirect object/benefactive, right? And in most cases, probably globally, the arguments which are "inside" valence on the omissibility criterion will function to code these three semantic/syntactic/whatever roles. But there are exceptions, as examples like 'devoid' show. Regina Koontz John E wrote:On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > English, "put", e.g., requires a locative (you can't just "put > something"). Does that mean that the locative is an argument of that > verb? Or is the absence of prepositional marking part of the > prerequisite for calling something an argument? My inclination on this is that a required locative is indeed an argument, while an optional one is not. I think this amounts to Filmore's distinction of between central and peripheral obliques. This is the point at which many languages incorporate the adposition into the verb. I think it's also the one at which Siouan languages often allow indexing of the argument governed by a locative prefix, e.g., JOD 1890:61.6 aNdhaNna?u (i'..na?u 'pass close to') i-aN -na?u pass close to me (IMP) JOD 1890:165.11 aNdhaNdhikkaN (i'..kkaN 'to contend with') aN-i-dhi-kkaN we contend with you However, for what it's worth, locations don't seem to be mandatory with OP 'to put' forms, which may be one reason they have the alternate reading 'to put away'. > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can and > does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. obliquely > marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. It was definitely Dryer's article I was remembering: DRYER, MATTHEW S. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62.808.45 (1986). > I have somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology > of systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a > variable for individual verbs. ... That's what I recall, too. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at centrum.cz Mon Apr 4 18:52:51 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:52:51 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050404135548.26790.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Regina, I'd like to ask question about the following part of you message: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' > (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Can you explain why you analyze it as 'things'? Thank you Jan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 19:29:10 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:29:10 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <001101c53947$815faf00$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > > I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is > a contraction of wo'yute 'food' > (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 19:41:16 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:41:16 -0600 Subject: wichamak'u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050404135548.26790.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: > > (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This is very like the example Linda earlier reported that her Assiniboine consultant gave once, but now rejects. The difference is that the patient and recipient are reversed: LC > [*]pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens'" Of course, the ranking of kittens is lower, presumably, than spouse's family, and these are different dialects, but I'm still wondering if what we might have is the possibility of both indexes, but with low felicity. Or is it English influence, etc.? I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural, for all of which it might still be English influence, if the text was modern, which I no longer recall, though I think it was. From rankin at ku.edu Mon Apr 4 21:09:33 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:09:33 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: I've never seen anything like that in the languages I've looked at. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Koontz John E Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:29 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: argument structure k'u etc. On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > > I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a > contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Apr 4 21:12:20 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:12:20 -0600 Subject: Dative Marking and the Primary Argument Language Type In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Bob's comment about the Dryer "primary/secondary" argument typology is > relevant, except that Lak. has a very robust "dative case" that it can > and does utilize quite often to show "secondary" argument (i.e. > obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries. I have > somehow internalized the idea that Dryer's theory is a typology of > systems (some languages do it one way, some the other), not a variable > for individual verbs. This may be one of those places where I know just enough to be dangerous, so please correct me if this is wrong! I had the impression that the dative construction in Lakota (and Omaha-Ponca and so on) amounted to a device for permitting a recipient-object to occur with a verb that, in underived, non-dative form, agreed with its patient-object. In effect, the dative marker is a way of deriving a ditransitive verb from a mono-transitive one. And ditransitive verbs in primary object languages have to agree with the recipient-object. You can also think of it as a way of marking the case of the primary object as dative. You can a;sp think of it as a requirement to raise the expressed possesor of an object to object. There are other ways it could be done, but "dative marking" in the verb is the mechanism in most Siouan languages. I tend to think that some mechanism like this is more or less essential in a primary object language in which the primary object is indexed in the verb. Anyway, from this perspective I'm not sure I would want to describe the dative marker as way to "show secondary argument (i.e. obliquely marked) status for recipients and beneficiaries." Actually, I think it substitutes them for the patient-object as primary arguments." The recipient does kidnap the patient indexing property, right? (This may be where I am confused.) So, it seems to me that the old primary argument that is now secondary, which is as it should be relative to a recipient in a primary argument language. I guess we can't call the patient object oblique, since oblique (or indirect) is a term for direct object systems. Along these lines, I don't believe there is any way in Lakota or Omaha-Ponca to include a recipient-object in a mono-transitive verb clause. So, unlike English, you can't say 'give x to y' but only 'give y x'. Nor is there any way in Omaha-Ponca that I can see to form a mono-transitive from a ditransitive, e.g., to convert ?i 'give' into a verb that agrees with the patient-object and doesn't mention the recipient-object or demotes it to an adpositional form like 'to y' in 'give x to y'. It may be possible to do something along those lines with wa- in Lakota but I wasn't clear on the details. It looked to me like this was an area where Omaha-Ponca and Lakota went different ways. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 23:10:47 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:10:47 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <001101c53947$815faf00$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: Hi Jan: I have doubts about the woyute hypothesis because of the complexity of the reduction that would be required here -- John just made that point. So I'd like to ask you back: why should these forms originate in woyute rather than in wa-o- 'non-specific patient + locative prefix'? There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference in Lakota which figure as affixes, like ho- 'camp circle' or wi- 'woman'. These elements can be used as incorporated nouns, just like you assume wo- is used in my examples. But I've never heard of a wo- affix which serves as a kind of placeholder for woyute 'food'. I don't have access to a Buechel dictionary right now, maybe he has some info on that, but even then, I'd still challenge the woyute analysis. Best, Regina "Jan F. Ullrich" wrote: Hi Regina, I'd like to ask question about the following part of you message: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' > (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' > (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). Can you explain why you analyze it as 'things'? Thank you Jan --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 23:14:06 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:14:06 -0700 Subject: wichamak'u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' > I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural. The grammaticality of the example has, in the meantime, been confirmed by an additional speaker. Regina Koontz John E wrote: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > In an earlier discussion, I quoted the follwing example from my text data: > > (4) wicha-ma-k'u-pi 'they (my family) gave me to them (my husband's family) in marriage' This is very like the example Linda earlier reported that her Assiniboine consultant gave once, but now rejects. The difference is that the patient and recipient are reversed: LC > [*]pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi 'they gave me the kittens'" Of course, the ranking of kittens is lower, presumably, than spouse's family, and these are different dialects, but I'm still wondering if what we might have is the possibility of both indexes, but with low felicity. Or is it English influence, etc.? I note that Regina's example came from text, not elicitation, so it should be reasonably natural, for all of which it might still be English influence, if the text was modern, which I no longer recall, though I think it was. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 07:35:44 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:35:44 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)' (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)' I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is a contraction of wo'yute 'food' (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). << I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea behind _wok'u_. Alfred From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 08:00:57 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:00:57 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: Addendum: Still one thought striking me, as a sidenote. The Lakota verb _(w)ok'u_ perfectly parallels the German verb 'eingeben' (of medicine). 'einnehmen' - take medicine/pills. Alfred From jfu at centrum.cz Tue Apr 5 08:29:13 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:29:13 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050404231047.14996.qmail@web54610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: REGINA PUSTET wrote: > There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference in Lakota > which figure as affixes, like ho- 'camp circle' or wi- 'woman'. > These elements can be used as incorporated nouns, just like you assume wo- is used in my examples. This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I run into it again, this time I would keep record. Thank you for the discussion Jan From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Apr 5 13:08:46 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:08:46 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <42523FD0.9030901@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: wok'u is on p. 604 of Buechel, 'to give foot do; to lend' also gives wol "cont. of wota", so you're right on target with that one, Alfred. BTW: Asb also has wok'u. Linda > > I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ > giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence > "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). > With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. > BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and > additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: > "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea > behind _wok'u_. > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 16:41:10 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:41:10 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: > On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. I see where Jan's argument originates now, but, like Regina and others, I still question whether wo- could be a reduced woyute. Alfred's *wol or perhaps woyul might be a better bet. While Deloria's data have to be considered correct, I don't think her and Boas' _interpretations_ of her data are always right. While writing about positional verbs, I ran across the claim in B&D that the irregular verb forms maNka 'I sat', naNka 'you sat' (from yaNkA 'be sitting') have pronominal allomorphs that show these verbs have become stative (or 'neutral'/'passive', whatever). But this is a mistake. The pronominals m- and n- here are not allomorphs of ma- and ni- but historically regular variants of *w(a)- and *y(a)- respectively. It's easy to see how a native speaker could reanalyze these as stative allomorphs, but historically it's inaccurate. One of the oldest examples of an incorporated noun must surely be ?uN(k)- '1st person inclusive'. Given various forms of this in other Siouan languages like waNk- (Tutelo), wa:Ng- (Hochunk), aN(k)- (Dhegiha), etc., it almost certainly represents an incorporated form of proto-Siouan *wa:NkE or *wu:NkE 'man, person' (there are nearly exact parallels with modern French "on" 'we'). But even here the root-final -k is preserved contextually in most of the languages. So I think most nouns don't undergo all that much phonological truncation when incorporated. Mostly they only lose -E or -A and then the root-final consonant undergoes some mutation. Bob From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Apr 5 16:52:43 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:52:43 +0200 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. Message-ID: >> I'd tend to assume that _wo-_ is a locative contraction of _wa-o-_ giving the "picture" of "giving smth. in (the mouth)" i.e. food, hence "to feed" (e.g. little kids, cubs etc.). With regard to _woyute_, I'd rather expected _wol-_ for truncation. BTW, Buechel doesn't seem to list _wok'u_, but Ingham does - and additionally has _iognakiya_ (i-ogna-ki-ya), the fully elaborated form: "to put (food) in the mouth of" -> to feed, what might parallel the idea behind _wok'u_. <<<< > wok'u is on p. 604 of Buechel, 'to give food to; to lend' also gives wol "cont. of wota", so you're right on target with that one, Alfred. BTW: Asb also has wok'u. << Linda, thanks for the hint: in my copy of B., it's p. 391 where I - now - found it. Alfred From lcumberl at indiana.edu Tue Apr 5 17:12:38 2005 From: lcumberl at indiana.edu (lcumberl at indiana.edu) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:12:38 -0500 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <6CFE0AAEA0B7E84A9E6292B3A056A68D01233C3B@meadowlark2.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I agree with the point about *interpretation* of data in B&D. I don't include wo- 'food' in my discussion of "noun classifiers" (which I call "truncated nouns") because, in fact, it is not a truncated noun, like the others in the list; nor are its derivatives nouns, but verbs, so I see it as something unique, a truncated verb (wa + yuta > wota > wo-) with specialized meaning. BTW, Assiniboione has won-, cognate to Lak. wol-, by what I have labeled a process of coda nasalization. Linda Quoting "Rankin, Robert L" : > > On page 71 Boas&Deloria actually list wo- ('food') among those > "nominal prefixes" you mention above. This was where I was coming from > but couldn't remember the source until I made a search for it. > > I see where Jan's argument originates now, but, like Regina and others, > I still question whether wo- could be a reduced woyute. Alfred's *wol > or perhaps woyul might be a better bet. While Deloria's data have to be > considered correct, I don't think her and Boas' _interpretations_ of her > data are always right. > > While writing about positional verbs, I ran across the claim in B&D that > the irregular verb forms maNka 'I sat', naNka 'you sat' (from yaNkA 'be > sitting') have pronominal allomorphs that show these verbs have become > stative (or 'neutral'/'passive', whatever). But this is a mistake. The > pronominals m- and n- here are not allomorphs of ma- and ni- but > historically regular variants of *w(a)- and *y(a)- respectively. It's > easy to see how a native speaker could reanalyze these as stative > allomorphs, but historically it's inaccurate. > > One of the oldest examples of an incorporated noun must surely be > ?uN(k)- '1st person inclusive'. Given various forms of this in other > Siouan languages like waNk- (Tutelo), wa:Ng- (Hochunk), aN(k)- > (Dhegiha), etc., it almost certainly represents an incorporated form of > proto-Siouan *wa:NkE or *wu:NkE 'man, person' (there are nearly exact > parallels with modern French "on" 'we'). But even here the root-final > -k is preserved contextually in most of the languages. So I think most > nouns don't undergo all that much phonological truncation when > incorporated. Mostly they only lose -E or -A and then the root-final > consonant undergoes some mutation. > > Bob > > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 17:51:07 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:51:07 -0600 Subject: Argument Terminology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Summarizing and simplifying neutral argument terminology (revised) Indexed in Verb Not Indexed in Verb indexed argument unindexed argument non-argument If an argument was indexed in some specific way this could be specified, e.g., number-indexed argument (as opposed to a pronominally-indexed argument). I think one could reasonably assume that pronominally-indexed was the default form of indexing, but it appears that one can't assume that an indexed argument is the default form of argument at present, though I think that this has been trued historically of Siouanist usage. I only started thinking of unindexed arguments as arguments when I began trying to produce a classification of verbs that handled OP ?i 'give', dhiNge 'to lack' and git?e 'one's own to be dead', especially the first and last. I'll have admit that before that I hadn't really noticed the additional unindexed arguments. Because there are people using argument to mean both indexed argument and either indexed or unindexed argument, it's probably a good idea to clarify what you mean at present, and whether you distinguish between unindexed arguments and non-arguments. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 17:54:18 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:54:18 -0600 Subject: wok?u (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <425245B9.1080607@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: > The Lakota verb _(w)ok'u_ perfectly parallels the German verb 'eingeben' > (of medicine). 'einnehmen' - take medicine/pills. Which resembles English 'take internally' as in 'Not to be taken internally'. For food a closer parallel might be 'partake of'. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 18:09:42 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:09:42 -0600 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <001401c539b9$8cdb4340$0201a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: RP> There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference JU> This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria > actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention > above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source > until I made a search for it. When I saw Regina's comment I got to thinking I might have seen something like wo = woyuta in Boas & Deloria, but I hadn't gotten around to checking it yet. Since we have the contracted form wota, I suppose one could argue that wo- as a classificatory prefix is from wol-, which seem plausible. For example, Dakota speakers of the previous century - the century before last I guess, now - seemed to find it plausible that Thi(N)thuN(waN) 'Teton' should be derived from thiNta + thuNwaN, presumably via thiNl-thuNwaN [thiNnthuN(w)aN]. Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate inflection of yuta (if I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 haac^, A2 raac^, A3 ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - PMVS *ru(u)t, or perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has been transferred into Winnebago. I hope I'm getting the final vowel of yuta correct in the various forms above! However, all this aside, I still suspect wok?u < wa-o-k?u. It seems to have a sort of partitive sense. JU> I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- > seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen > something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I > run into it again, this time I would keep record. If there are other examples of this it would certainly be interesting. I seem to recall hearing that there are sometimes drastic simplications in Algonquian compounds. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 18:29:12 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:29:12 -0600 Subject: Classificatory Compounds and Theme Form (RE: argument ....) In-Reply-To: <1112721158.4252c7067fc2a@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote: > I agree with the point about *interpretation* of data in B&D. I don't > include wo- 'food' in my discussion of "noun classifiers" (which I call > "truncated nouns") because, in fact, it is not a truncated noun, like > the others in the list; Without the list in front of me, what I noticed in Regina's two examples is that in at least one case, wi-, it's less truncation than loss of the thematic affix that forms the independent stem. In short, its a combining form like s^uNk- vs. s^uNka 'dog' or siNl- vs. siNte' 'tail'. There is denasalization in many cases with wiN-, there is nasal spread in the full stem wiNyaN (underlying |[wiNya]|), and there is an epenthetic glide -y-, but I'd explain wiNyaN < wiN + a 'woman' as otherwise exactly parallel with suNka < suNk + a. There are relatively few cases of CV + a, but it occurs. Another is heya < he + a 'louse'. I think there's also iNyaN < iN + a 'stone'. For that matter, parallel with cases like c^haNl- ~ c^haNte' 'heart' we have c^huN ~ c^huNwe' ('w.'s older sister', I think!), though the parallel older sibling terms are the only case of CV + e that I know of. I'm not sure what the Dakotan extended form is for ho- 'camp circle'. In OP the independent for is hu'dhuga, in which the -dhuga seems to be a locative element *roka 'inside', though the evidence is comparative, not internal to OP. From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Tue Apr 5 18:50:42 2005 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:50:42 -0500 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) Message-ID: For what it's worth: IOM: haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: "Siouan List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: > RP> There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal > reference > > JU> This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria >> actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention >> above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source >> until I made a search for it. > > When I saw Regina's comment I got to thinking I might have seen something > like wo = woyuta in Boas & Deloria, but I hadn't gotten around to checking > it yet. Since we have the contracted form wota, I suppose one could argue > that wo- as a classificatory prefix is from wol-, which seem plausible. > For example, Dakota speakers of the previous century - the century before > last I guess, now - seemed to find it plausible that Thi(N)thuN(waN) > 'Teton' should be derived from thiNta + thuNwaN, presumably via > thiNl-thuNwaN [thiNnthuN(w)aN]. > > Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate inflection of yuta (if > I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 haac^, A2 raac^, A3 > ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - PMVS *ru(u)t, or > perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has been transferred into > Winnebago. > > I hope I'm getting the final vowel of yuta correct in the various forms > above! > > However, all this aside, I still suspect wok?u < wa-o-k?u. It seems to > have a sort of partitive sense. > > JU> I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'- >> seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen >> something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I >> run into it again, this time I would keep record. > > If there are other examples of this it would certainly be interesting. I > seem to recall hearing that there are sometimes drastic simplications in > Algonquian compounds. > From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 20:06:39 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:06:39 -0500 Subject: verb suppletion. Message-ID: Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? There are other instances of verb pairs that are phonologically and semantically partly similar getting mixed conjugation. *e:he 'to say' and ie 'to talk' are mixed in more than one language. Historically it has happened with nouns and stative verbs also: Reflexes of *maNtho 'grizzly' and wihuNte 'black bear' get mixed in Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi. Similarly *wahkaN 'sacred' and *waNhkaN 'medicine' are mixed in some languages, with *wahkaN becoming 'snake' in Chiwere-Winnebago and but *waNhkaN becoming 'snake' in Tutelo, Biloxi and Ofo. Giulia Oliverio and I talk about these latter cases in the little paper in the Siebert Festschrift volume, and I explain the forms in detail there. Bob > IOM: > haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. >> Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate >> inflection of yuta (if >> I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 >> haac^, A2 raac^, A3 >> ruuc^. This suggests something unusual about yuta - >> PMVS *ru(u)t, or >> perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has >> been transferred into >> Winnebago. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 21:26:33 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:26:33 -0600 Subject: Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <004001c53a11$2210d270$0b640945@JIMM> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > For what it's worth: > IOM: > haji, I eat; raji, you eat; ruje, he/she/it eats. Since IOM has the same pattern as Winnebago and Dakotan, there's no question of Dakotan influence in Winnebago. It looks like an old pattern. Incidentally, this pattern is not found in Dhegiha, but perhaps mainly because a new verb 'to eat' *rathe has been innovated. I think Bob found some traces of *rute as 'to dip up', e.g., in Kaw. I don't remember if he had identified the source of *rathe. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 5 21:38:57 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:38:57 -0600 Subject: verb suppletion. In-Reply-To: <003901c53a1a$fb931bd0$24b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley > Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or > more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? I don't think so. While *...te and *...the might both yield Winnebabo ...c^ and IOM ...j^e (not sure why ...j^i in first and second persons), the pattern of inflection with *ra... would be A1 *Raa-, A2 *s^raa-, A3 *ra-, i.e., something like A1 ha-daj^i, A2 ra-sdaj^i, A3(ruj^e) in IOM (with pleonastic overlaying of the regular paradigm indicated before dashes). And in Dakotan (e.g., Teton) *raathe would inflect A1 blathe, A2 nathe, (A3 yathe), not A1 wate, A2 yate. So, there's no way that particular pattern of suppletion could account for the pattern A1 *wa-t(e), A2 *ya-t(e), A3 *ru-t(e). The other examples are all good ones, of course. The best hypothesis I could come up with for *t- ~ *rut- 'eat' was that it might actually be *ut-, with the initial *r in the third person being perhaps a relict of a third person in *i-, so that the inflection was perhaps A1 *wa-(u)t-e, A2 *ya-(u)t-e, A3 (?) *i-(r)ut-e. I'm not so sure about that third person in *i-, though. From rankin at ku.edu Tue Apr 5 22:20:13 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:20:13 -0500 Subject: verb suppletion. Message-ID: I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the same conservative pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be lying' (ruNke), verbs in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The only difference is nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a somewhat more innovative pattern. As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the very few verbs with the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. I suppose it may be possible to think of 'chew' as more recent in some sense (maybe just less conservative in conjugation pattern, but I think the /a/ vowel in some forms comes from the 'chew' verb nonetheless. I don't know which dental stop Dakotan dialects have here, but it would be interesting to look at the range of dialect data for this verb. The consonantism in the suppletive 'eat' works for me in CH/WI because *ra:the 'chew' has *th, (not *ht), and *rute 'eat' has just *t. Fortunately or unfortunately, both of these dentals have the reflex [d] or [j] in Chiwere and Hochunk (voiceless in WI word finally, of course), so the difference resides only in the V there. Both verb stems have reflexes in all MVS subgroups but reflexes of *rute are more specialized in Dhegiha apparently. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koontz John E" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: verb suppletion. > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> Isn't this just the suppletion of Mississippi Valley >> Siouan *ra:the 'to chew, eat physically' with one or >> more persons of *rute 'to eat, dip'? > > I don't think so. While *...te and *...the might > both yield Winnebabo > ...c^ and IOM ...j^e (not sure why ...j^i in first > and second persons), > the pattern of inflection with *ra... would be A1 > *Raa-, A2 *s^raa-, A3 > *ra-, i.e., something like A1 ha-daj^i, A2 ra-sdaj^i, > A3(ruj^e) in IOM > (with pleonastic overlaying of the regular paradigm > indicated before > dashes). And in Dakotan (e.g., Teton) *raathe would > inflect A1 blathe, A2 > nathe, (A3 yathe), not A1 wate, A2 yate. So, there's > no way that > particular pattern of suppletion could account for > the pattern A1 > *wa-t(e), A2 *ya-t(e), A3 *ru-t(e). > > The other examples are all good ones, of course. > > The best hypothesis I could come up with for *t- ~ > *rut- 'eat' was that it > might actually be *ut-, with the initial *r in the > third person being > perhaps a relict of a third person in *i-, so that > the inflection was > perhaps A1 *wa-(u)t-e, A2 *ya-(u)t-e, A3 (?) > *i-(r)ut-e. I'm not so sure > about that third person in *i-, though. > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Apr 6 00:49:39 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:49:39 -0600 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) In-Reply-To: <001901c53a2d$a4482ce0$1eb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the same conservative > pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be lying' (ruNke), verbs > in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The only difference is > nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a somewhat more innovative > pattern. That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an r-stem inflectional pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there are verbs that take a pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. Usually the stem initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost before r, so that after all the sound changes have worked out you get a pattern of A1 m..., A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 *s^raathe, A3 *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 *s^rute, A3 *rute you might get quite interesting things, especially if the language also merged *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I hadn't allowed for that. However, though it would be exciting to have an(other) oral instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that this verb doesn't exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, which don't have aspiration as far as I know. In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling that the m/n/(*r ~ w ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth of the *?-stem pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation immediately preceding. I think that the basic pattern for *?-initial (or maybe it's *V-initial) stems (and others) was *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... A3 *V... *CV... *rv... The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - though *o 'to wound' and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - and mostly have some element before the inflectional slot that conditions an epenthetic *r or *w in the A3 form, e.g., A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' leading to paradigms like Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca A1 *imaNghe imaNghe A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe except that the second person appears instead as is^naNghe (later inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form from the *r-stem (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the apparent *r-stem (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes (across Dhegiha) you find the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., ibdhaNghe, or the third person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic dh (*r), e.g., iwaNghe. > As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the very few verbs with > the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' also appears in Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < *(r)iNk- 'SITTING ANIMATE' which inflects A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting (And has the same pattern of inflection for the suppletive stem dhaNkha < *uNk- in the plural.) I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, because I've noticed that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those stems match this mixed *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan Dakotan Winnebago A1 muN ha?uN A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN A3 ?uN ?uN (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about length.) In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has A1 maN A2 z^aN < *y-uN A3 aN OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does Winnebago s^?), but if the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical importation from *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume Winnebago has rebuilt things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to assume that all *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched to the mixed *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no initial element to condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By contrast, in Dhegiha it seems that the switchover affected all stems with epenthetic *r, plus a few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the glottal stop stems. If one is uncomfortable with different languages exhibiting different degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I think that to be consistant one has to recognize the following classes of verbs: I) to question II) auxiliaries with *r III) auxiliaries with *w IV) *?-stems There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's pretty clear that the second persons of IV in the various languages don't correspond with each other, though some of them clearly do match second persons in the I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more you sense that you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my progression to these conclusions: careful insistence on regular correspondences => numerous implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption of differential degrees of analogical leveling. My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is that (a) the original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd relative to other patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an obvious motive for analogizing pattern IV away. Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' carry their own epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the auxiliaries, acquire the conditioning only in situ as a positional enclitic following a suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or *(w)uNk - think *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, forms like *uN 'do', though some of them may also occur in contexts like *i-(r)uN 'do with, use' that condition it. Result - transfers from *V-stems to *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different degrees in different environments in different areas of the Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect continuum and when the regional dialects become distinct branches of PMV they show different patterns of behavior with stems that occurred in different environments. Eliminate random forms over a long period of time and you end up with the different patterns we see today. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 6 14:47:43 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:47:43 -0500 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) Message-ID: I think the real question I have about 'eat' is whether the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the accented /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. I know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one of very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I showed that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have identical outcomes, so those languages aren't diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think John is right and some other explanation is in order. It occurs to me that we already know that the sequence *wu (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and that normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, i.e., either the vowel or consonant changes. That being the case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give /wate/ regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad hoc as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is pretty reasonable. I don't think we've really ever figured out the precise status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether they are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are still a lot of imponderables (several of which John points out below). Bob > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the >> same conservative >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be >> lying' (ruNke), verbs >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The >> only difference is >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a >> somewhat more innovative >> pattern. > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an > r-stem inflectional > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there > are verbs that take a > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. > Usually the stem > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost > before r, so that > after all the sound changes have worked out you get a > pattern of A1 m..., > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). > > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 > *s^raathe, A3 > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 > *s^rute, A3 *rute you > might get quite interesting things, especially if the > language also merged > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I > hadn't allowed for > that. However, though it would be exciting to have > an(other) oral > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that > this verb doesn't > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, > which don't have > aspiration as far as I know. > > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling > that the m/n/(*r ~ w > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth > of the *?-stem > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation > immediately > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for > *?-initial (or maybe it's > *V-initial) stems (and others) was > > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems > > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... > > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - > though *o 'to wound' > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - > and mostly have some > element before the inflectional slot that conditions > an epenthetic *r or > *w in the A3 form, e.g., > > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' > > leading to paradigms like > > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe > > except that the second person appears instead as > is^naNghe (later > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form > from the *r-stem > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the > apparent *r-stem > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes > (across Dhegiha) you find > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., > ibdhaNghe, or the third > person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic > dh (*r), e.g., > iwaNghe. > >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the >> very few verbs with >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. > > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to > question' also appears in > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING > ANIMATE' which inflects > > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting > > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the > suppletive stem dhaNkha < > *uNk- in the plural.) > > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, > because I've noticed > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those > stems match this mixed > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan > > Dakotan Winnebago > A1 muN ha?uN > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN > A3 ?uN ?uN > > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about > length.) > > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has > > A1 maN > A2 z^aN < *y-uN > A3 aN > > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does > Winnebago s^?), but if > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical > importation from > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume > Winnebago has rebuilt > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) > > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to > assume that all > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched > to the mixed > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no > initial element to > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By > contrast, in Dhegiha it > seems that the switchover affected all stems with > epenthetic *r, plus a > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the > glottal stop stems. > > If one is uncomfortable with different languages > exhibiting different > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I > think that to be > consistant one has to recognize the following classes > of verbs: > > I) to question > II) auxiliaries with *r > III) auxiliaries with *w > IV) *?-stems > > There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's > pretty clear that > the second persons of IV in the various languages > don't correspond with > each other, though some of them clearly do match > second persons in the > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more > you sense that > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my > progression to these > conclusions: careful insistence on regular > correspondences => numerous > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption > of differential > degrees of analogical leveling. > > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is > that (a) the > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd > relative to other > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an > obvious motive for > analogizing pattern IV away. > > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' > carry their own > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the > auxiliaries, acquire > the conditioning only in situ as a positional > enclitic following a > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or > *(w)uNk - think > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. > > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, > forms like *uN 'do', > though some of them may also occur in contexts like > *i-(r)uN 'do with, > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from > *V-stems to > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different > degrees in different > environments in different areas of the > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect > continuum and when the regional dialects become > distinct branches of PMV > they show different patterns of behavior with stems > that occurred in > different environments. Eliminate random forms over > a long period of time > and you end up with the different patterns we see > today. > > From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Wed Apr 6 15:55:51 2005 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:55:51 -0500 Subject: New Dakota Linguist Book In-Reply-To: <002201c53ab7$97f59f10$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Members: The Minnesota Historical Society has just released "550 Dakota Verbs" By Harlin LaFontaine and our own Neil McKay (Cantemaza). $19.95 www.mhspress.org Congratulations koda. Toksta ake, Louie From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 6 16:01:59 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:01:59 -0600 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) In-Reply-To: <002201c53ab7$97f59f10$25b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Lak. has unaspirated "t" in both yuta (wate, yate) and wote (wawate, wayate, wote, i.e. the form with the wa- prefix and the (now obsolete) rule that -ayu- goes to -o-. I'm not sure what you mean by 'eat physically'. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I think the real question I have about 'eat' is whether > the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the accented > /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. I > know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat > physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one of > very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I showed > that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have > identical outcomes, so those languages aren't > diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think John > is right and some other explanation is in order. It > occurs to me that we already know that the sequence *wu > (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and that > normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, i.e., > either the vowel or consonant changes. That being the > case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give /wate/ > regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires > accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad hoc > as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the > existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is pretty > reasonable. > > I don't think we've really ever figured out the precise > status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative > vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether they > are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are still > a lot of imponderables (several of which John points > out below). > > Bob > > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are the > >> same conservative > >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and 'be > >> lying' (ruNke), verbs > >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. The > >> only difference is > >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a > >> somewhat more innovative > >> pattern. > > > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking an > > r-stem inflectional > > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, there > > are verbs that take a > > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob says. > > Usually the stem > > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been lost > > before r, so that > > after all the sound changes have worked out you get a > > pattern of A1 m..., > > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). > > > > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, A2 > > *s^raathe, A3 > > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 > > *s^rute, A3 *rute you > > might get quite interesting things, especially if the > > language also merged > > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. I > > hadn't allowed for > > that. However, though it would be exciting to have > > an(other) oral > > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel that > > this verb doesn't > > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, > > which don't have > > aspiration as far as I know. > > > > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the feeling > > that the m/n/(*r ~ w > > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an outgrowth > > of the *?-stem > > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed notation > > immediately > > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for > > *?-initial (or maybe it's > > *V-initial) stems (and others) was > > > > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems > > > > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < *w-rV... > > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < *y-rV... > > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... > > > > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly nasalized - > > though *o 'to wound' > > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - > > and mostly have some > > element before the inflectional slot that conditions > > an epenthetic *r or > > *w in the A3 form, e.g., > > > > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' > > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' > > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' > > > > leading to paradigms like > > > > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca > > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe > > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe > > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe > > > > except that the second person appears instead as > > is^naNghe (later > > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form > > from the *r-stem > > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the > > apparent *r-stem > > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes > > (across Dhegiha) you find > > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., > > ibdhaNghe, or the third > > person might have epenthetic w instead of epenthetic > > dh (*r), e.g., > > iwaNghe. > > > >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the > >> very few verbs with > >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. > > > > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to > > question' also appears in > > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., dhiNkhe < > > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING > > ANIMATE' which inflects > > > > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting > > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting > > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting > > > > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the > > suppletive stem dhaNkha < > > *uNk- in the plural.) > > > > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, too, > > because I've noticed > > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those > > stems match this mixed > > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan > > > > Dakotan Winnebago > > A1 muN ha?uN > > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN > > A3 ?uN ?uN > > > > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure about > > length.) > > > > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has > > > > A1 maN > > A2 z^aN < *y-uN > > A3 aN > > > > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does > > Winnebago s^?), but if > > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical > > importation from > > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume > > Winnebago has rebuilt > > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) > > > > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have to > > assume that all > > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were switched > > to the mixed > > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no > > initial element to > > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By > > contrast, in Dhegiha it > > seems that the switchover affected all stems with > > epenthetic *r, plus a > > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the > > glottal stop stems. > > > > If one is uncomfortable with different languages > > exhibiting different > > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I > > think that to be > > consistant one has to recognize the following classes > > of verbs: > > > > I) to question > > II) auxiliaries with *r > > III) auxiliaries with *w > > IV) *?-stems > > > > There is some potential for combining I-III, and it's > > pretty clear that > > the second persons of IV in the various languages > > don't correspond with > > each other, though some of them clearly do match > > second persons in the > > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the more > > you sense that > > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was my > > progression to these > > conclusions: careful insistence on regular > > correspondences => numerous > > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an assumption > > of differential > > degrees of analogical leveling. > > > > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing is > > that (a) the > > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite odd > > relative to other > > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to > > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, > > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 > > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 > > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's an > > obvious motive for > > analogizing pattern IV away. > > > > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to question' > > carry their own > > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like the > > auxiliaries, acquire > > the conditioning only in situ as a positional > > enclitic following a > > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or > > *(w)uNk - think > > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. > > > > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, e.g, > > forms like *uN 'do', > > though some of them may also occur in contexts like > > *i-(r)uN 'do with, > > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from > > *V-stems to > > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different > > degrees in different > > environments in different areas of the > > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect > > continuum and when the regional dialects become > > distinct branches of PMV > > they show different patterns of behavior with stems > > that occurred in > > different environments. Eliminate random forms over > > a long period of time > > and you end up with the different patterns we see > > today. > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 6 23:01:42 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:01:42 -0500 Subject: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) Message-ID: /rathe/, Lak. yatha' is 'chew' in most Siouan languages. EJ translated it as 'gossip' in Lak. "Eat" can be either physical or metaphorical, as in 'dine' I guess. The Yatha cognate set includes all MVS languages and Biloxi and refers to the physical act of eating something, i.e., chewing. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "ROOD DAVID S" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: *V-stems (Re: verb suppletion) > > Lak. has unaspirated "t" in both yuta (wate, yate) > and wote (wawate, > wayate, wote, i.e. the form with the wa- prefix and > the (now obsolete) > rule that -ayu- goes to -o-. I'm not sure what you > mean by 'eat > physically'. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > >> I think the real question I have about 'eat' is >> whether >> the Dakotan 1st and 2nd person forms with the >> accented >> /a/ have a plain /t/ or an aspirated /th/ in them. >> I >> know that yuta has a plain /t/, but 'chew, eat >> physically' has /th/, and in fact has PSi *th (one >> of >> very few forms in which *th isn't from *rh). I >> showed >> that in Hochunk and Chiwere *th and *t will have >> identical outcomes, so those languages aren't >> diagnostic. If Dak. has wate, yate, then I think >> John >> is right and some other explanation is in order. It >> occurs to me that we already know that the sequence >> *wu >> (including wuN) is highly unstable in Siouan, and >> that >> normally it dissimilates to either /ru/ or /wa/, >> i.e., >> either the vowel or consonant changes. That being >> the >> case, the 1st person of 'eat', *w-ute could give >> /wate/ >> regularly. Then only the 2nd person requires >> accounting for, and an analogical explanation, ad >> hoc >> as they may seem, based on the 1st sg. plus the >> existence of a near synonym, /yatha/ 'eat', is >> pretty >> reasonable. >> >> I don't think we've really ever figured out the >> precise >> status of /?/ and/or /r/ and /w/ in the putative >> vowel-initial verb stems. The question is whether >> they >> are organic or epenthetic, or both, and there are >> still >> a lot of imponderables (several of which John points >> out below). >> >> Bob >> >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: >> >> I think the pronouns in these 'eating' verbs are >> >> the >> >> same conservative >> >> pattern you get with 'be sitting' (ra:Nke) and >> >> 'be >> >> lying' (ruNke), verbs >> >> in which the initial glides may be epenthetic. >> >> The >> >> only difference is >> >> nasality of the V. I think John is expecting a >> >> somewhat more innovative >> >> pattern. >> >> > That's true. I was thinking of *raathe as taking >> > an >> > r-stem inflectional >> > pattern, because it does in Dhegiha. However, >> > there >> > are verbs that take a >> > pattern of A1 wV..., A2 s^r-..., A3 r... as Bob >> > says. >> > Usually the stem >> > initial vowel is nasalized and A2 s^- has been >> > lost >> > before r, so that >> > after all the sound changes have worked out you >> > get a >> > pattern of A1 m..., >> > A2 n..., A3 r... (or A3 w...). >> > >> > Anyway, with that inflectional pattern A1 *waathe, >> > A2 >> > *s^raathe, A3 >> > *raathe might occur, and mixing with A1 *prute, A2 >> > *s^rute, A3 *rute you >> > might get quite interesting things, especially if >> > the >> > language also merged >> > *t and *th as *t (or *d) as Winnebago and IO do. >> > I >> > hadn't allowed for >> > that. However, though it would be exciting to >> > have >> > an(other) oral >> > instance of this pattern, I still tend to feel >> > that >> > this verb doesn't >> > exhibit it, on the strength of the Dakotan forms, >> > which don't have >> > aspiration as far as I know. >> > >> > In regard to the *V-initial stems, I have the >> > feeling >> > that the m/n/(*r ~ w >> > ~ 0) pattern they exhibit is essentially an >> > outgrowth >> > of the *?-stem >> > pattern (m/*y/0). I apologize for the mixed >> > notation >> > immediately >> > preceding. I think that the basic pattern for >> > *?-initial (or maybe it's >> > *V-initial) stems (and others) was >> > >> > *V-stems *Regulars *r-stems >> > >> > A1 *w-V... *wa-CV... *p-rV... < >> > *w-rV... >> > A2 *y-V... *ya-CV... *s^-rV... < >> > *y-rV... >> > A3 *V... *CV... *rv... >> > >> > The *V-stems stems in question are mostly >> > nasalized - >> > though *o 'to wound' >> > and *u 'to come (head this way)' seem to be oral - >> > and mostly have some >> > element before the inflectional slot that >> > conditions >> > an epenthetic *r or >> > *w in the A3 form, e.g., >> > >> > A1 *i-w- uNghe 'I question' >> > A2 *i-y- uNghe 'you question' >> > A3 *i- ruNghe 'she questions' >> > >> > leading to paradigms like >> > >> > Proto-Dhegiha Omaha-Ponca >> > A1 *imaNghe imaNghe >> > A2 *iz^aNghe *iz^aNghe >> > A2 *iraNghe idhaNghe >> > >> > except that the second person appears instead as >> > is^naNghe (later >> > inaNghe), which amounts to substituting an A2 form >> > from the *r-stem >> > (dh-stem) paradigm, presumably by analogy with the >> > apparent *r-stem >> > (dh-stem) form in the third person. Sometimes >> > (across Dhegiha) you find >> > the first person in dh-stem form, too, e.g., >> > ibdhaNghe, or the third >> > person might have epenthetic w instead of >> > epenthetic >> > dh (*r), e.g., >> > iwaNghe. >> > >> >> As I recall, 'sit, stand' and 'eat' are among the >> >> very few verbs with >> >> the archaic (V-initial?) conjugation pattern. >> > >> > The pattern that appears with *i-(r)uNghe 'to >> > question' also appears in >> > Dhegiha with some of the positionals, e.g., >> > dhiNkhe < >> > *(r)iNk- 'SITTING >> > ANIMATE' which inflects >> > >> > A1 miNkhe I-the-sitting >> > A2 (s^)niNkhe you-the-sitting >> > A3 dhiNkhe she-the-sitting >> > >> > (And has the same pattern of inflection for the >> > suppletive stem dhaNkha < >> > *uNk- in the plural.) >> > >> > I regard the *?-stems as cases of this pattern, >> > too, >> > because I've noticed >> > that the Dakotan and Winnebago patterns for those >> > stems match this mixed >> > *V-initial/*r-initial pattern, cf. Dakotan >> > >> > Dakotan Winnebago >> > A1 muN ha?uN >> > A2 nuN < *s^-nuN s^?uN < *s^-?uN >> > A3 ?uN ?uN >> > >> > (Winnebago forms from memory and I'm not sure >> > about >> > length.) >> > >> > In the same stem Omaha-Ponca has >> > >> > A1 maN >> > A2 z^aN < *y-uN >> > A3 aN >> > >> > OP z^ and Da n don't correspond (and neither does >> > Winnebago s^?), but if >> > the Da n is from s^n and that s^n is an analogical >> > importation from >> > *r-stems, then everything makes sense. (I assume >> > Winnebago has rebuilt >> > things on the assumption of a root *?uN.) >> > >> > Of course, there's a rub, which is that I do have >> > to >> > assume that all >> > *V-stem (or *?-stem) verbs in Dakotan were >> > switched >> > to the mixed >> > *V-stem/*r-stem pattern, even when there was no >> > initial element to >> > condition epenthetic *r in the third person. By >> > contrast, in Dhegiha it >> > seems that the switchover affected all stems with >> > epenthetic *r, plus a >> > few more (the positional auxiliaries), but not the >> > glottal stop stems. >> > >> > If one is uncomfortable with different languages >> > exhibiting different >> > degrees of extension of the same analogy, then I >> > think that to be >> > consistant one has to recognize the following >> > classes >> > of verbs: >> > >> > I) to question >> > II) auxiliaries with *r >> > III) auxiliaries with *w >> > IV) *?-stems >> > >> > There is some potential for combining I-III, and >> > it's >> > pretty clear that >> > the second persons of IV in the various languages >> > don't correspond with >> > each other, though some of them clearly do match >> > second persons in the >> > I-III classes. In short, the purer you get, the >> > more >> > you sense that >> > you're overlooking the obvious. At least this was >> > my >> > progression to these >> > conclusions: careful insistence on regular >> > correspondences => numerous >> > implausibly similar mini-paradigms => an >> > assumption >> > of differential >> > degrees of analogical leveling. >> > >> > My understanding of the "degrees of analogy" thing >> > is >> > that (a) the >> > original IV (*V-stemor *?-stem) pattern is quite >> > odd >> > relative to other >> > patterns in each language - we'd expect Dakota to >> > have A1 muN, A2 *c^huN, >> > A3 uN, for example, by analogy with OP A1 maN, A2 >> > z^aN, A3 aN, and OP A2 >> > z^aN is quite a surprise as it is. Hence, there's >> > an >> > obvious motive for >> > analogizing pattern IV away. >> > >> > Then, (b) some verbs like *i-(r)uNghe 'to >> > question' >> > carry their own >> > epenthesis conditioner with them. Others, like >> > the >> > auxiliaries, acquire >> > the conditioning only in situ as a positional >> > enclitic following a >> > suitably preceding noun or verb, e.g., *(r)iNk or >> > *(w)uNk - think >> > *s^uNka=r-iNk 'the sitting dog'. >> > >> > Still other verbs lack the environment at all, >> > e.g, >> > forms like *uN 'do', >> > though some of them may also occur in contexts >> > like >> > *i-(r)uN 'do with, >> > use' that condition it. Result - transfers from >> > *V-stems to >> > *V-stem/*r-stem mixed-stems occur in different >> > degrees in different >> > environments in different areas of the >> > Proto-Mississippi Valley dialect >> > continuum and when the regional dialects become >> > distinct branches of PMV >> > they show different patterns of behavior with >> > stems >> > that occurred in >> > different environments. Eliminate random forms >> > over >> > a long period of time >> > and you end up with the different patterns we see >> > today. >> > >> > >> > From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 10 21:45:58 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:45:58 -0500 Subject: 2005 Siouan and Caddoan Languages and Linguistics Conference Message-ID: 25th Annual Siouan and Caddoan Languages and Linguistics Conference Friday, June 17 ? Sunday a.m., June 19, 2005 LOCATION: Museum Building, Kaw Nation Tribal Complex, Kaw City, Oklahoma ABSTRACT/TITLE DEADLINE: June 10, 2005. If you wish to be on the program, please send the title of your proposed paper or presentation to: by email or as an email attachment. You may also use the postal service if you wish: Robert L. Rankin, Department of Linguistics, 1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66044-3177. A brief abstract (no more than a couple of hundred words, preferably less) or description of your topic would also be appreciated. Format for the annual Siouan and Caddoan Conference has traditionally been quite informal and open. Language-related topics from very technical linguistics (minimalism, O.T., etc.) to methods and problems encountered in teaching Siouan or Caddoan languages to students are all welcome. Presentations may be formal and read aloud or they may be open discussions of particular problems and topics. Time slots for presentations will be 30 minutes unless more or less time is specifically requested by the presenter (we will try to accommodate everyone?s requests). With the presence of so many Siouan and Caddoan peoples in the vicinity, we hope to have good participation from various language programs (Siouan: Kaw, Osage, Ponca and Omaha, Quapaw and Ioway-Otoe-Missouria tribes and others farther afield; Caddoan: Pawnee, Wichita, Caddo) as well as many interested linguists. Last year our conference was quite international with participation of linguists from the Czech Republic, England, Germany, and Lithuania as well as representation from the Omaha and Winnebago tribes. Any special requests for equipment such as projector, tape recorder, computer, etc. should be directed to Justin McBride, Conference Co-organizer and the Language Coordinator of the Kaw Nation at as soon as possible, and he will let you know what is available. There will be a nominal registration fee of $10 for participants ($5 for students), to cover the cost of coffee-break refreshments. Kaw City, OK is located on state highway 11 about 12 miles ENE of Ponca City, OK on a long peninsula that extends into Kaw Lake. The tribal complex is on the north side of the highway entering town from the west and is hard to miss. There is no public transportation between Kaw City and Ponca City, so private vehicles and a van will be used to ferry participants between their motel and the tribal complex. Nearest airports: Oklahoma City (100 mi.), Tulsa (80 mi.), and Wichita, KS (80 mi.). If you are flying in, let us know your flight information and we will do our best to organize airport pickups or rental-car sharing. LODGING: A small block of rooms (10 non-smoking, 5 smoking) has been reserved, under the name Robert Rankin, at the Econo Lodge, 212 S. 14th St., Ponca City, OK 74601 (phone 580-762-3401 or fax 580-762-4550). Call before June 10th to get the group rate of $39+tax a night. It would probably pay to make reservations early! This is also the weekend of one of the Osage Inlonshka dances and a Cattlemen?s Association meeting nearby, and these, plus other events, may fill many of the motels in the area. There are several other motels in Ponca City. Most are more expensive. These can be found listed at: Click on ?businesses? and only then ?motels/hotels? for a complete list. (Currently the Fairfield Inn and Comfort Inn are under construction and not open.). For the slightly more adventurous, the conference site is near numerous lakeside campsites established and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Each campsite has a parking spot, water, electricity and a grill for cooking. There are shelters and picnic tables nearby as well as toilet and (very minimal) showering facilities. There is a charge of between $11 and $16 a day for campsites at the lake. The campsites are within a couple of miles of Kaw City but probably not quite within walking distance. We would appreciate being informed if you plan to attend the conference, even if you are not giving a talk, so we will know roughly how many people to expect. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCLC2005.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Apr 10 21:59:53 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:59:53 -0500 Subject: SCLC call for papers. Message-ID: I just posted the first announcement for this year's SCLC to be held at the Kaw Nation in Kaw City, Oklahoma. Please let me know immediately if you spot any major errors, misspellings, etc. I'll wait a day or two and then post it to Linguist List, various tribal organizations and others who might be interested. Suggestions for these latter would be welcomed! I hope to see everybody there!! Bob From FurbeeL at missouri.edu Fri Apr 15 21:35:13 2005 From: FurbeeL at missouri.edu (Louanna Furbee) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:35:13 -0500 Subject: Oto In-Reply-To: <20050331160129.5843.qmail@web54610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >There are efforts among the Ioway. Contact "Jimm GoodTracks" >. Also Lance Foster and Lori Stanley >. Louanna Furbee >Dear Siouanists: > >I'm posting this on behalf of a young man of Oto ancestry who would >like to go back to his roots. He is particularly interested in the >Oto language. He wants to know if the language is still spoken >somewhere, are least rudimentarily, and if there are any >revitalization projects. > >Although Oto is officially extinct, he would appreciate any info or >addresses of people he could contact (speakers, specialists at both >scholarly and non-scholarly levels). I'd pass any incoming messages >on to him. > >Regina > > > >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - >Try >our new resources site! -- Prof. N. Louanna Furbee Department of Anthropology 107 Swallow Hall University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 USA Telephones: 573/882-9408 (office) 573/882-4731 (department) 573/446-0932 (home) 573/884-5450 (fax) E-mail: FurbeeL at missouri.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:17:03 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:17:03 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424CE2BD.5070407@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On 1/4/05 6:57 am, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: I just noticed this reference to me. Yes wicanic'u would be 'he gave you to them'. It's one of my many minor errors. I'm not sure where I got these from, but probably Bushotter, which forms most of my data base. As far as I remember the context was 'giving in marriage'. There are very few such examples in my experience Bruce > 3) That's what I found at B. Ingham's: wicacic'u [wicha'chic?u] given as > "I gave you to them". Also: wicanic'u [wicha'nic?u] translated as "They > gave you to them "in marriage)" (which I'd expected to be wicanic'upi, > instead). > Maybe Bruce will comment on this? > > > Alfred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:28:27 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:28:27 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/4/05 6:39 pm, "ROOD DAVID S" wrote: How fascinating. Possibly also nis^ miye kte lo, mis^ niye kte lo. Any native speakers to solve the problem. I only remember that in this connection Boas and Deloria give similar play context exampples live imagmu 'I am a cat' and 'imaletka 'I am a branch'. Bruce What happens if you're planning a > prank with role substitution, and you need to say "I'm going to be you, > and you be me" (note English "me", by the way)? I'm going to guess it'd > have to be "niye hemacha kte, miye henicha kte" and not *hemayacha or, > abosultely out, *hechicha. Actually, I bet the more likely construction > would be niye (cha?) miye kte, which would confirm the "predicate" > analysis -- but I don't know what might happen if you force the use of > "hecha". > From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:35:20 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:35:20 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <424FE93D.4060003@fa-kuan.muc.de> Message-ID: On 3/4/05 2:01 pm, "Alfred W. T?ting" wrote: I don't think you can do that, but maybe you didn't mean it. I can visualize wawak'u hemaca, wawicak'u hemaca 'I am a giver of things' or even wawak'u ki he miye wawicak'u ki he miye 'I am the giver of donations'. Bruce> > the last one kind of meaning ?wawa-ma-k'u - I'm a giver of donations/I'm > big-hearted/generous) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:37:52 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:37:52 +0100 Subject: Oops. In-Reply-To: <00a401c53865$65488130$13b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 3/4/05 4:54 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: >> In other words, the lines representing the other >> cases formed OBLIQUE angles with vertical the casus >> rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the >> angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' and >> 'oblique cases'. > > I see that ADJ.-DET. relationships are changing in my > 66 year-old English. The above should read: "with the > vertical casus rectus", NOT "with vertical the casus > rectus" > > Bob > > > Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, mansuub 'inclined' is accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all through of as 1-90 degrees. However they may have it from the Greeks Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 14:46:35 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:46:35 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 4/4/05 8:29 pm, "Koontz John E" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote: >>> (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)' >> >> I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is >> a contraction of wo'yute 'food' >> (wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u). > > Is there a precedent for such extreme reductions? > > > Sorry I've been out of the loop for a while, I hope these remarks have not laready been made. Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. Bruce From rankin at ku.edu Mon Apr 18 14:53:23 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:53:23 -0500 Subject: case diagram Message-ID: That's really interesting. I've been part of an off-list discussion of this sort of diagramatic representation of case and my retired colleague, Keith Percival, who originally brought the diagram to my attention, believes it may only date from the last couple of centuries. The Arabic brings a whole new dimension to the question. Any idea how long this usage has been in Arabic? Bob >>> In other words, the lines representing the other >>> cases formed OBLIQUE angles with the vertical, the >>> casus >>> rectus, and, as you moved from case to case, the >>> angles DECLINED. Thus the origin of 'declension' >>> and >>> 'oblique cases'. > Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, > mansuub 'inclined' is > accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all > through of as 1-90 degrees. > However they may have it from the Greeks > Bruce From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Mon Apr 18 17:19:46 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:19:46 +0100 Subject: case diagram In-Reply-To: <004b01c54426$5f8dc620$1bb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 18/4/05 3:53 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: > That's really interesting. I've been part of an > off-list discussion of this sort of diagramatic > representation of case and my retired colleague, Keith > Percival, who originally brought the diagram to my > attention, believes it may only date from the last > couple of centuries. The Arabic brings a whole new > dimension to the question. Any idea how long this > usage has been in Arabic? Bob > >> Arabic does it too marfu' 'raised' is nominative, >> mansuub 'inclined' is >> accusative and majruur 'pulled' is genitive, all >> through of as 1-90 degrees. >> However they may have it from the Greeks >> Bruce > > > > As far as I know the terminology is all quite early ie from the Abbasid period in Basra and Kufa, which makes it 7th-8th centuries AD. They also had quite reasonable phonetic terminology, strangely enough they had not discovered voice-voiceless, but almost got it with something called mahmuus 'whispered' and majhuur 'loud'. Bruce From okibjonathan at yahoo.com Tue Apr 19 14:19:13 2005 From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:19:13 -0700 Subject: 12 good reasons why advertising companies should hire anthropologists Message-ID: Howdy, I thought you might find these true facts a bit humorous. Jonathan 12 good reasons why advertising companies should hire liguistic anthropologists: 1. The Dairy Association's huge success with the campaign "Got Milk?" prompted them to expand advertising to Mexico. It was soon brought to their attention the Spanish translation read, "Are you lactating?" 2. Coors Beer put its slogan, "Turn it loose," into Spanish, where it was read as "Suffer from diarrhea". 3. Scandinavian vacuum manufacturer Electrolux used the following in an American campaign: "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux". 4. Clairol introduced the "Mist Stick", a curling iron, into Germany only to find out that "mist" is slang for manure. Not too many people had use for the manure stick". 5. When Gerber started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as in the US, with the smiling baby on the label. Later they learned that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside, since many people can't read. 6. Colgate introduced a toothpaste in France called Cue, which also happened to be the name of a notorious porno magazine. 7. An American T-shirt maker in Miami printed shirts for the Spanish market which promoted the Pope's visit some years ago. Instead of "I saw the Pope" (el Papa), the shirts read "I saw the potato" (la papa). 8. Pepsi's "Come alive with the Pepsi Generation" translated into "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave", in Chinese. 9. The Coca-Cola name in China was first read as "Ke-kou-ke-la", meaning "Bite the wax tadpole" or "female horse stuffed with wax", depending on the dialect. Coke then researched 40,000 characters to find a phonetic equivalent "ko-kou-ko-le", translating into "happiness in the mouth". 10. Frank Perdue's chicken slogan, "it takes a strong man to make a tender chicken" was translated into Spanish as "it takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate". 11. When Parker Pen marketed a ball-point pen in Mexico, its ads were supposed to have read, "it won't leak in your pocket and embarrass you". Instead, the company thought that the word "embarazar" (to impregnate) meant to embarrass, so the ad read: "It won't leak in your pocket and make you pregnant". 12. When Chevrolet distributed their "Nova" model cars in Mexico, they could not understand why they did not sell as well as they did in the US until a middle manager pointed out that in Spanish "Nova" translates as "no go". --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Apr 19 19:58:43 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:58:43 -0600 Subject: SSILA Learning Materials List (SSILA Bulletin #221) (fwd) Message-ID: The following is extracted from the current SSILA newsletter. Though a number of members of the Siouan List are also SSILA members, it seems to me that the SSILA non-members on the list might be interested in this. ============= * Learning Aids update ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As many of you will know, the SSILA website has a "Learning Aids" page, with listings of pedagogical materials--primers, dictionaries, tapes, lessons, etc.--for various American Indian languages. As many of you may also know, these listings are terribly out of date. A great many of the books and tapes announced there are no long available, or the prices have changed, or the ordering addresses have long since been changed. We are now in the process of reviewing and updating the entire Learning Aids page. To help us in this daunting task, could we ask the following of you? (1) If you know for certain that a listing on the Learning Aids page is incorrect in some way, please let us know the specifics. (2) If you are the publisher or distributor of learning materials on some specific language or languages: please send us a description of the materials (books, tapes, CDs, videos, etc.), the prices you are asking, and ordering instructions. If you have a website from which these materials can be ordered, please let us know the address. If you accept payments only by mail, let us know the forms of payment you accept (check, credit card, etc.) (3) If you have purchased or otherwise know about some learning materials that you would recommend for a particular language: please send us the details, if possible including where the materials can be obtained. (4) If you are reasonably familiar with materials in a certain area (e.g., Oklahoma languages) or on a particular group of languages (e.g., Athabaskan languages), and have the time to spare, we would be *most* grateful if you could serve as a contributing editor for the Learning Aids page. Spearheading this project will be the SSILA website manager, Ardis Eschenberg, whom you can contact at . You can also contact the Bulletin editor, Victor Golla, at . We look forward to hearing from you! From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 21 08:37:20 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:37:20 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. Bruce There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes that wa- when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. In other words, assuming a basic verb form ok'u, we wouldn't get wa-ok'u, but rather, wo-k'u. So there is nothing that keeps us from analyzing wok'u as containing wa- 'non-specific patient' (I avoid the term indefinite). Buechel does have an entry ok'u 'to lend, give food to etc.' The examples that document this contraction are legion in the Buechel dictionary, e.g. wokiyaka 'to speak to', wokah^nig^a 'to understand', wohaN 'to cook, boil'. Regina __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Apr 21 15:59:18 2005 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:59:18 -0400 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050421083720.84989.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I spoke to a Native Speaker about this and, in his words, it is the 'w' and not the 'o' or the 'a.' He related the wa and wo forms and noted that in certain contexts (before uN) it can be hard to distinguish which is more appropriate (maybe even it is just the orthographic convention of the writer?). So, his intuition did not involve a food-related analysis. I wish I had written everything he said down, but I didn't. There was more to it. I am thankful for his sharing (he said to go ahead and post this) and ask to be excused of any inadequacies of my memory. -Ardis Quoting REGINA PUSTET : > [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] > > Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does > occur in > a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from > woyute > as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai > 'bring > food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota > 'eat > things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. > Bruce > > There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes > that wa- when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. In other > words, assuming a basic verb form ok'u, we wouldn't get wa-ok'u, but > rather, wo-k'u. So there is nothing that keeps us from analyzing > wok'u as containing wa- 'non-specific patient' (I avoid the term > indefinite). Buechel does have an entry ok'u 'to lend, give food to > etc.' The examples that document this contraction are legion in the > Buechel dictionary, e.g. wokiyaka 'to speak to', wokah^nig^a 'to > understand', wohaN 'to cook, boil'. > > Regina > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Thu Apr 21 16:36:48 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:36:48 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050421083720.84989.qmail@web54609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok?u means ?to lend?, why should we have wok?u for ?to give food?. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means ?food? and does not come from wa-o Bruce On 21/4/05 9:37 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed'] > > Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does occur in > a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from woyute > as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai 'bring > food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota 'eat > things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'. > Bruce > There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes that wa- > when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. > > Regina > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 21 18:26:23 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:26:23 -0600 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Bruce Ingham wrote: > The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok?u > means ?to lend?, why should we have wok?u for ?to give food?. Both Jan and > I are presuming that wo- means ?food? and does not come from wa-o I've noticed various Omaha-Ponca instances of u'- < *wo- that seem to have the reading 'an instance of ...'. I think u's^kaN - something like 'doings' - would be an example, though there are others. 'Doings' in the sense of 'get-together, celebration' is a usage I've encountered in Omaha English. It's not an active part of my own dialect of English, but I recognize it and I think it's not restricted to Omaha English. I don't know if it's widespread in Nebraska. Maybe Dakota wo'k?u refers to an occasion of giving and food is simply a characteristic gift? If wo'- (or OP u'-) in this case indicates to an instance or occasion, then reversing the nominalization suggests that o- (or OP u-) indicates something like performing an act of something or participating in an occasion of something, which seems like an ideal sort of derivational process for forming legal or other specialized terminology. ("On or about the 20th of April the aforesaid did give, or perform an act of donation, ...") Maybe that helps explain why 'donate' has been suggested as a translation rather than 'give'? It seems to me that the native speaker intuitions that Ardis relayed might reflect something like this notion of the relationship between wa- and wo-forms, and hence of unmarked and o-forms, though I may be reaching there. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 06:13:28 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:13:28 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok?u means ?to lend?, why should we have wok?u for ?to give food?. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means ?food? and does not come from wa-o Bruce I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. Regina __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 22 17:05:14 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:05:14 -0600 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050422061329.80447.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything > to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit > such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations > containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial > o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. My guess is that the problem with this approach is that any wo- in this sense of 'food' probably wouldn't be productive enough to elicit arbitrary examples of it. So it may come down to a philological exercize using whatever examples Boas & Deloria cite to support themselves, plus any others in sources like Riggs and Buechel. This is something that one of us could probably do fairly quickly. > (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical > classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). Assuming that wo- 'food' would be from attested wotA, a attested peculiarity of yutA, and not from woyutA per se, we'd probably be dealing with *wol-k?u > wo'k?u, right? Would the stress on a compound of this form be wolk?u'? I'm more than a little vague on the finer points of Dakota accentuation, but I seem to recall that compounding is one of the contexts in Dakotan where accent is not restricted to the "first root" in a word, e.g., c^aNlwa's^te, if I recall the example correctly. > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o > either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the > language. And in Mississippi Valley Siouan generally, to the point that it might be treated less as a process in Dakotan than as a still more or transparent process of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan. But when is something like this a process and when is it an artifact? > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a > reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the > phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in > favor of the wa-o hypothesis. I realize that this is just a minor > issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. I quite agree that this deserves clasificaiton. It is the sort of superficially minor point on which important morphological issues can turn, and it is also a very longstanding conundrum introduced by Boas & Deloria themselves. Do we accept or reject their account of wo- 'food'? This is a good question for all you Dakotanists and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the general issue is, does Dakotan display an occasional pattern of more or less arbitrary or drastic reductions of incorporated elements to which we can appeal in resolving the structure of forms like wok?u 'give, e.g., 'giving portions' rather than as a gloss on (w)o-? Without having reviewed other proposed wo- 'food' forms, I would be doubtful that there is a regular formation of this nature, though it's not inconceivable. But, Regina (and Jan and Bruce et al.) I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? From pustetrm at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 18:21:13 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:21:13 -0700 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: [John:] I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? I'd say it's a possibility, at least it's far more plausible than a contraction of woyute 'food' to wo-. wol- would also solve the stress problem nicely, because any combination of wa- 'non-specific patient' plus verb-initial yu-, as in yutA 'eat', will result in stressed wo-. (Sometimes the contraction does not take place and wa-yu- is retained, but this is another issue.) My only concerns regarding the wol-hypothesis are semantic in nature. To me, wotA means 'to eat (itr.)' and nothing else, i.e. this lexical item lacks the nominal reading that would be required if the wol- = food hypothesis were adequate. But then, Bruce's wol+transportation verb example, if I remember it correctly, seems to imply such a nominal reading. Regina Koontz John E wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything > to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit > such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations > containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial > o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. My guess is that the problem with this approach is that any wo- in this sense of 'food' probably wouldn't be productive enough to elicit arbitrary examples of it. So it may come down to a philological exercize using whatever examples Boas & Deloria cite to support themselves, plus any others in sources like Riggs and Buechel. This is something that one of us could probably do fairly quickly. > (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical > classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). Assuming that wo- 'food' would be from attested wotA, a attested peculiarity of yutA, and not from woyutA per se, we'd probably be dealing with *wol-k?u > wo'k?u, right? Would the stress on a compound of this form be wolk?u'? I'm more than a little vague on the finer points of Dakota accentuation, but I seem to recall that compounding is one of the contexts in Dakotan where accent is not restricted to the "first root" in a word, e.g., c^aNlwa's^te, if I recall the example correctly. > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o > either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the > language. And in Mississippi Valley Siouan generally, to the point that it might be treated less as a process in Dakotan than as a still more or transparent process of Proto-Mississippi Valley Siouan. But when is something like this a process and when is it an artifact? > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a > reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the > phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in > favor of the wa-o hypothesis. I realize that this is just a minor > issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. I quite agree that this deserves clasificaiton. It is the sort of superficially minor point on which important morphological issues can turn, and it is also a very longstanding conundrum introduced by Boas & Deloria themselves. Do we accept or reject their account of wo- 'food'? This is a good question for all you Dakotanists and I'm interested to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the general issue is, does Dakotan display an occasional pattern of more or less arbitrary or drastic reductions of incorporated elements to which we can appeal in resolving the structure of forms like wok?u 'give, e.g., 'giving portions' rather than as a gloss on (w)o-? Without having reviewed other proposed wo- 'food' forms, I would be doubtful that there is a regular formation of this nature, though it's not inconceivable. But, Regina (and Jan and Bruce et al.) I wonder how you feel about the possiblity of an irregular reduction of hypothetical *wolk?u to wok?u? Would accentuation resolve this one way or another? Would you consider *wolk?u itself plausible? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 22 19:00:04 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:00:04 -0600 Subject: Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.) In-Reply-To: <20050422182113.17897.qmail@web54607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, REGINA PUSTET wrote: > My only concerns regarding the wol-hypothesis are semantic in nature. To > me, wotA means 'to eat (itr.)' and nothing else, i.e. this lexical item > lacks the nominal reading that would be required if the wol- = food > hypothesis were adequate. But then, Bruce's wol+transportation verb > example, if I remember it correctly, seems to imply such a nominal > reading. I agree that for this analysis to be plausible there would have to be a reading wotA 'food'. I think a wa-form as a nominal in itself would be reasonable, but I admit that I'd expect *wayu'tA (not sure of appropriate final vowel), not wo'(yu)tA for 'food'. However, now that you raise the point I think I recall plant names in Gilmore's ethnobotany of Nebraska with forms like chapathawote. I would parse this as 'beaver-its-food', and I think there are some additional 'its food' plant names in Buechel in the various plant name lists. I may have some details of the forms wrong in my memory, but I remember being struck by the occurrence of tha- with a wo-derivative, which I took as evidence that wotA in this context was fully nominal. Subject to verifying this recollection, would that help? From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Apr 23 13:08:52 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:08:52 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050422061329.80447.qmail@web54605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22/4/05 7:13 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. > > The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok?u > means ?to lend?, why should we have wok?u for ?to give food?. Both Jan and I > are presuming that wo- means ?food? and does not come from wa-o > > Bruce > I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to > one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. > There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. > Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an > element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- > 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that > this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a > hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). > But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, > because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. > Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of > woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity > involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. > i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves > clarification. > > Regina > __________________________________________________ Regina It may be that Buechel says ok?u may involve food, but I?ve only ever seen it used to mean ?lend?. Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don?t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k?u ?give? Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Sat Apr 23 13:25:54 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:25:54 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just thought of some more wo = 'food' examples wola 'ask for' wolkhiya 'cause to eat', wowakaaya 'bring food to' , wokichin 'ask for food for sby' Bruce From pustetrm at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 18:52:51 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:52:51 -0700 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don?t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k?u ?give? Bruce The contraction wol- > wo- is not the problem, Bruce. Loss of the L could happen any time and to me, does not require much explanation. The hard part is establishing wol- as something that is semantically more similar to a nominal reading 'food' rather than to the original intransitive verb wotA 'to eat'. John seems to be in the process of discovering some interesting wol- 'food' compounds that might help here. Lakota does have verb serialization, of course, but claiming that wol+k'u adds up to a translation 'to give food to', on the assumption that wol- is to be interpreted as a verb rather than as a noun, strikes me as not very idiomatic given the way serial verb constructions function in the language at the semantic level. The translation would have to be more like: 's/he gave it to him/her eating'. Regina Bruce Ingham wrote:On 22/4/05 7:13 am, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: Thanks, Ardis... this is very helpful info. The wo < wa-o thing is of course well known, but the question is , if ok?u means ?to lend?, why should we have wok?u for ?to give food?. Both Jan and I are presuming that wo- means ?food? and does not come from wa-o Bruce I'm now quoting Buechel in detail on ok'u (p. 393): 1. 'to lend anything to one. 2. (of k'u). 'to give to, e.g. food; to give a portion to'. There is not much to be done about the hypothesis that wo- means 'food'. Either the prefix exists, or it doesn't, at least you can always posit such an element. However, I recommend eliciting semantic combinations containing wo- 'food' in conjunction with verbs which don't have initial o-. My guess is that this is not grammatical. (Another hint: unlike a true wa-o contraction, as a hypothetical classificatory prefix, wo- 'food' shouldn't carry stress). But there is nothing to be done about the hypothesis that wo- = wa-o either, because it reflects a highly regular contraction process in the language. Given the fact that some of us have stated before, namely that a reduction of woyute 'food' to wo- 'food' is unlikely because of the phonetic complexity involved, my vote is clearly and emphatically in favor of the wa-o hypothesis. i realize that this is just a minor issue, but I feel it deserves clarification. Regina __________________________________________________ Regina It may be that Buechel says ok?u may involve food, but I?ve only ever seen it used to mean ?lend?. Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don?t see why wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k?u ?give? Bruce __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Apr 26 10:33:49 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:33:49 +0100 Subject: SCLC call for papers. In-Reply-To: <005301c53e18$a12486f0$2cb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On 10/4/05 10:59 pm, "R. Rankin" wrote: > I just posted the first announcement for this year's > SCLC to be held at the Kaw Nation in Kaw City, > Oklahoma. Please let me know immediately if you spot > any major errors, misspellings, etc. I'll wait a day > or two and then post it to Linguist List, various > tribal organizations and others who might be > interested. Suggestions for these latter would be > welcomed! > > I hope to see everybody there!! > > Bob > > > Dear Bob I look forward to seeing you at the conference. I would like to give a paper entitled 'Adverbial function in Lakota' I attach and also paste an abstract Bruce Ingham Professor of Arabic Dialect Studies SOAS. London University Thornhaugh St. Russell Square London WC1H OXG. England **************************** Tel 020 7898 4336 **************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Adverbs abstract Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bi1 at soas.ac.uk Tue Apr 26 14:23:15 2005 From: bi1 at soas.ac.uk (Bruce Ingham) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:23:15 +0100 Subject: argument structure k'u etc. In-Reply-To: <20050423185251.39791.qmail@web54603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 23/4/05 7:52 pm, "REGINA PUSTET" wrote: > Also as the prefix wol- does seem to exist as an alternant, I don?t see why > wo- is so difficult as a further contraction. You then simply add it to k?u > ?give? > Bruce > The contraction wol- > wo- is not the problem, Bruce. Loss of the L could > happen any time and to me, does not require much explanation. The hard part is > establishing wol- as something that is semantically more similar to a nominal > reading 'food' rather than to the original intransitive verb wotA 'to eat'. > John seems to be in the process of discovering some interesting wol- 'food' > compounds that might help here. > Lakota does have verb serialization, of course, but claiming that wol+k'u adds > up to a translation 'to give food to', on the assumption that wol- is to be > interpreted as a verb rather than as a noun, strikes me as not very idiomatic > given the way serial verb constructions function in the language at the > semantic level. The translation would have to be more like: 's/he gave it to > him/her eating'. > > Regina > > > >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >> Ah, I see your problem. But I don?t see why we have to think it comes from woyute. I would happily have it as ultimately related to wota and then shortened to wol- and used in making compound verbs. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at GBRonline.com Wed Apr 27 14:56:59 2005 From: goodtracks at GBRonline.com (Jimm GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:56:59 -0500 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN Message-ID: >>From 1825-1840, there was an Otoe leader named Shun'ma?ikathi (Prairie Wolf), which appears in documents as "Chon-Moni-Case", "Shau-mone-kusse", etc. However, his actual name was overshawdowed by the name above "IATAN/ IOTAN". This was the name given him by the fur traders, it is said, after his successful encounter with the Comanche. This name -- Iatan/ Iotan-- from which towns have named "to honor the chief", is said to mean "Comanchi". The usual name in IOM for Comanche is "Paduka" or even "Padoke" ("Wet Head" if in reference to a human being OR "Wet Nose" if reference is to an animal). There was earlier dialog about this latter term as it appears in Omaha-Ponca. My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I can not make any sence of it in IOM, and have concluded that is it from the Comanche language? a French term? or what? Has anyone come across this term for other tribal communities or have information of the term origin. Jimm From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Apr 27 17:26:36 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:26:36 -0600 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN In-Reply-To: <003b01c54b39$609b3290$34650945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm, I sent this query to the person I know who knows Comanche the best (Jean Charney) and got this response: That word does not sound Comanche to me. They don't do initial voiced stops, for one thing. My Comanche is totally rusty; I suggest that you contact Tom Kavanaugh, who has an unparalleled knowledge of Comanche history. He's still at Indiana, as far as I know. His Comanche Political History has a list of ethnonyms from the 1700s & 1800s, and a quick scan of those didn't yield any likely candidates. I will leave it up to you to keep up the hunt. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > >From 1825-1840, there was an Otoe leader named Shun'ma?ikathi (Prairie > Wolf), which appears in documents as "Chon-Moni-Case", "Shau-mone-kusse", > etc. > However, his actual name was overshawdowed by the name above "IATAN/ IOTAN". > This was the name given him by the fur traders, it is said, after his > successful encounter with the Comanche. This name -- Iatan/ Iotan-- from > which towns have named "to honor the chief", is said to mean "Comanchi". > The usual name in IOM for Comanche is "Paduka" or even "Padoke" ("Wet Head" > if in reference to a human being OR "Wet Nose" if reference is to an > animal). There was earlier dialog about this latter term as it appears in > Omaha-Ponca. > > My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I can not make any > sence of it in IOM, and have concluded that is it from the Comanche > language? a French term? or what? > Has anyone come across this term for other tribal communities or have > information of the term origin. > Jimm > > From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Apr 27 18:25:42 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:25:42 -0500 Subject: IATAN/ IOTAN In-Reply-To: <003b01c54b39$609b3290$34650945@JIMM> Message-ID: Jimm GoodTracks wrote: > My question is the source of the "Iatan/ Iotan" term. I have many examples of this name in a great variety of spellings, and I've been frustrated in trying to etymologize it. Most of the examples come from the first half if the 19th century, but I've found a few from the late 18c, e.g., Spanish Laytanes (1785), and French les hahitannes (1796), with hypothetical singular *l'hahitanne. These lead me to suspect that the original name had initial l- which was sometimes lost as though it were the French definite article: Laytan > l'hahitanne > Iatan (and varr.) If that's true, we could at least narrow the etymon down to a (presumably) Plains language with [l]: ideas anyone? Sorry not to be of more help. Alan From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 27 21:12:17 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:12:17 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: I tried explaining this name when I was going through the Siouan names (or supposedly Siouan names) for Bill Bright. This was for the "Native American Place Names of the US" published last year by the OU press. I'm afraid I didn't have much luck, and Bill ended up reproducing what John Rydjord had written about this name years ago. Rydjord was well educated and fascinated with place names. He knew enough to use the Osage and other dictionaries pretty judiciously. But he also collected lots of erronious etymologies from other scholars. I'll reproduce here most of what the NAPUS volume says: IATAN (Mo., Platte Co.) Named for an Oto leader . . . because of his battles with the Comanche people. who were sometimes called or (Rydjord 1968). This word is probably related to IATT (Grant Parish, LA) (recorded in 1816 as Hietan). Iatan has also been used to name a place in Tex. (Mitchell Co.). A related name may be Yutan (Saunders Co., Neb.) Iatan/Ietan are shown as being pronounced [ay6tan] (where 6 is a schwa, like the last vowel in ''sofa'') and the initial vowel is stressed. The similar place name in Louisiana is pronounced [ay6t] and the place in Texas is pronounced [aytan] with the accent on the last syllable. So the letter ''I'' represents [ay], as in ''sigh'', consistently. So, basically, this does not appear to be a native Otoe name. It's the name of somebody or some group that this particular Otoe chief beat in battle. And this DOES fit one of the naming traditions of Siouan-speaking warriors. You whip somebody and you can take his name. One of the Kaw names that baffled us for the longest time, Allegawahoo (in various spellings), was finally located by Justin McBride. It was the name of a Pawnee warrior that this particular Kaw chief had fought and killed. He then took the man's name, which meant something like 'Big Elk' in Pawnee. So it wasn't a native Kaw name, but a Kaw chief took it, essentially as a trophy. I expect that Iatan has some sort of similar history. I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. The only other possibility is the Saunders Co., Nebraska place name, Yutan, which is pronounced [yutan] ''yoo-tan'', and is apparently named for the same Otoe chief. Accent the first syllable. Wish I could help more, but this is all I've been able to dredge up. Bob From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Apr 27 22:23:03 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:23:03 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. In-Reply-To: <000f01c54b6d$cb641720$29b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: Bob wrote: > I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called > the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher & La Flesche). Rory From rankin at ku.edu Wed Apr 27 22:19:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:19:26 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: Yes, Padouca (padunka, padunke, padoke, etc., etc.) is used by several eastern plains tribes to refer to those ''wild'' folks 'way out West. It refers variously to Apaches, Comanches and/or maybe others. Iatan may be a similar name from some other source language. Padouca has no real, known meaning, but, as Jimm points out, it gets broken down and ''analyzed'' by various tribes in their respective languages. I ain't holding my breath over this one either. :-) Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory M Larson" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. > Bob wrote: >> I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called >> the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. > > Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca > term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains > Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking > ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. > > Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher > & La Flesche). > > Rory > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Apr 27 22:20:46 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:20:46 -0700 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. Message-ID: In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. Dave ---------- >From: "R. Rankin" >To: >Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. >Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2005, 3:19 pm > > Yes, Padouca (padunka, padunke, padoke, etc., etc.) is > used by several eastern plains tribes to refer to those > ''wild'' folks 'way out West. It refers variously to > Apaches, Comanches and/or maybe others. Iatan may be a > similar name from some other source language. Padouca > has no real, known meaning, but, as Jimm points out, it > gets broken down and ''analyzed'' by various tribes in > their respective languages. > > I ain't holding my breath over this one either. :-) > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rory M Larson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:23 PM > Subject: Re: Ietan, Iatan, etc. > > >> Bob wrote: >>> I guess the next step is to see if ANYbody called >>> the Comanches [ayatan] or the like. >> >> Isn't there a confusion over whether the Padouca >> term applied to the Commanches, or to the Plains >> Apaches, or both? Perhaps we should be checking >> ethnonyms for Apaches as well as for Commanches. >> >> Haven't found anything hopeful in Omaha (Fletcher >> & La Flesche). >> >> Rory >> >> > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Apr 27 22:49:38 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:49:38 -0500 Subject: Ietan, Iatan, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. > > Dave How far east is the term known? Rory From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Apr 27 23:12:18 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:12:18 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. Dave >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. >> Dave > How far east is the term known? > Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 00:07:34 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:07:34 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ("Padouca" name: How far east is it known?) > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > Dave These tribes were all transferred to northeastern Kansas near the Kaw and the Iowa-Oto in about 1846, weren't they? Could it have come into their languages at that time, or do we have evidence that they used the "Padouca" name before then? Rory From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Apr 28 00:28:09 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:28:09 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory M Larson wrote: > ("Padouca" name: How far east is it known?) > > >>In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. >> >>Dave > > > These tribes were all transferred to northeastern Kansas near the Kaw > and the Iowa-Oto in about 1846, weren't they? Could it have come > into their languages at that time, or do we have evidence that they > used the "Padouca" name before then? SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des Padoucas". Alan From are2 at buffalo.edu Thu Apr 28 00:52:15 2005 From: are2 at buffalo.edu (are2 at buffalo.edu) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:52:15 -0400 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <42702E19.3070202@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) That's a bit East. > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > des > Padoucas". > > Alan > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 06:13:09 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:13:09 -0600 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds Message-ID: The brief summary is, I think, that there is evidence for wo'te 'food', though normally in the context of food for animals: 'forage', 'browse', etc. At the same time, it seems doubtful that wo'-verbs with 'food' in the gloss derive from wol= < wo'te as an incorporand, though there may be some influenced from wol=. First, for the benefit of any non-Dakotanists (myself, anyway), in Dakotan as attested for Santee and Teton in the Riggs/Williamson-Buechel dictionary complex and in Ingham the form wo'yute is the nominal 'food', with yu'ta 'eat (trans.)' and wo'ta 'eat (intrans.)' as the verbal forms. For the benefit of the Dakotanists, the Omaha-Ponca pattern is somewhat simpler: dhathe 'to eat (trans.)', wadha'the 'to eat (intrans.); food'. It appears, however, that Dakotan wo'te 'food' does exist. Gilmore (1977), originally printed in 1914 lists the following plant names. Note that Gilmore's Linnaean binomials are generally out of date. "pispiza ta wote" (prairie-dog its-food) = Boerbera papposa 'prairie-dog fennel; fetid marigold' "zuzecha ta wote" (snake its-food) Celastrus scandens 'Bittersweet' "pte ta wote" (buffalo its-food) Geoprumnon crassicarpum 'Buffalo pea; ground plum' "h.eh.aka ta pezhuta, h.eh.aka ta wote" (elk its-medicine, elk its-food) Monarda fistulosa 'Horsemint' "zuzecha ta wote sapsapa" (snake its-medicine black-here-and-there) Symphoricarpos sp. 'Coralberry; Buck brush' Somewhat similar formations: "maka ta omnicha" (earth its-beans) Falcata comosa 'Groundbean' "heyoka ta pezhuta" (contrary his-medicine) Malvastrum coccineum 'Red false mallow' "chap' ta haza" (p' = p + apostrophe) (beaver its-grape) Ribes americanum 'Wild black currant' In fact, a very similar set of forms occur in Buechel, etc. See, for example, the lists of flowers, etc., in the English index to Buechel. In most cases wote here might be better glossed as something like 'browse' or 'forage', or perhaps just 'animal food', so it is not surprising if the form doesn't appear as 'food'. The fact that it doesn't appear in its own right at all may mean that it is specialized vocabulary that has been missed or that it only occurs in longer forms at present. Students of vocabulary and cultural contact may notice that in many cases the English name is obviously a calque of the Dakota name. Now, let's consider the possibility that wo- as a prefix in forms with the gloss 'food' comes from wo'ta 'to eat (intrans.)' ~ wo'te 'food' ~ wol- 'food (combining form)'. The hypothesis here comes from Boas & Deloria (1941:71) as far as I am aware. They say (1941:70) "A number of nouns in abbreviated form (or their primary stems?) are used in compounds as classifiers. The consciousness of their derivation is not always clear as is proved by those cases in which the noun is obscured by metathesis. Examples are: waNsma'hi for mas-waN'hi (metal arrow tooth) 'iron arrowhead' ..." The on p. 71 they say "wo- food; --- wo'yute 'good'; wo'(wa)k?u '(I) give food'; -- wo'aya 'to take food to a guest'; -- wo'(wa)la '(I) ask for food'." Looking under wo- in Buechel, for example, yields: wo 'food', cf. wo'yute (i.e., a reference for the morpheme) wo'c^hiNpi 'begging, craving; hunger' wo'k?u 'to give food to' wo'la 'to beg food' wo'las?a 'a beggar' (wo'la=s?a) wo'luta 'the round of a beef animal when dried' wo'soso 'meat cut in strips or strings' (maybe not?) wo'sota 'to kill off, to kill all the game' (maybe not?) wo'yaptapi 'leavings, fragments of food' wo'yute 'food' Here I've omitted any food-related form in which wo- is plainly a locative, e.g., wo'haN 'to cook, to boil, to make a feast', i.e., 'to boil something in something'. The following forms actually have wol, although wo'lwota is a reduplicated form 'to eat (repeatedly)'. wo'lwota 'to eat' wol=i'glus^taN 'to finish eating' wo'l=wic^hayapi 'a banquet' wol=ya' 'to make a feast' This is not a large list. Unlike some other classificatory prefixes, all examples, involve verbs, or nouns derived from verbs. While it is tempting to regard some of the wo-not-wol as cases of wo- derived from wol- and there seems to be no real semantic obstacle to this, I have noticed an interesting thing. Most of the wo-forms have a corresponding o-form with a related gloss: wo'chiNpi ~ oc^hiN' 'to desire, beg, ask for' wo'k?u ~ ok?u' 'to give to, e.g., food; to give a portion to' wo'luta ~ o'lute 'thigh muscle' wo'soso ~ oso' 'to cut open' wo'sota ~ o'sota 'all gone, used up' wo'yaptapi ~ oya'pta 'to leave, have over and above what one eats' wo'yute ~ oyu'te 'eating, food' In short, the wo'- cases are all plausibly wa-indefinite object forms derived from an underlying locative in o. My impression is that while wo'- as a 'food' classifier might be influenced by the existence of wol-compounds from wo'te 'food (for animals)', what we really have etymologically is wo'- < *wa-o'- where an indefinite object is pragmatically a reference to food. This intepretation of wo'- is enhanced as suggested by Regina by the accentual pattern with wo'-, though compounds with wo'l= may also show initial accent. Different sorts of compounds show different accentual patterns. John E. Koontz From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 06:26:13 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:26:13 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the Comanches. In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic groups. >>From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and verse on the arguments these days. A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the reference remains "Northern Caddoan." The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been borrowed from French. From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 28 07:17:18 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:17:18 -0700 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is the most systematic and thorough approach to the issue that we've had on the list so far -- I have nothing more to add. John's evidence goes with my initial intuition that wok'u > wa-o-k'u. Regina Koontz John E wrote: The brief summary is, I think, that there is evidence for wo'te 'food', though normally in the context of food for animals: 'forage', 'browse', etc. At the same time, it seems doubtful that wo'-verbs with 'food' in the gloss derive from wol= < wo'te as an incorporand, though there may be some influenced from wol=. First, for the benefit of any non-Dakotanists (myself, anyway), in Dakotan as attested for Santee and Teton in the Riggs/Williamson-Buechel dictionary complex and in Ingham the form wo'yute is the nominal 'food', with yu'ta 'eat (trans.)' and wo'ta 'eat (intrans.)' as the verbal forms. For the benefit of the Dakotanists, the Omaha-Ponca pattern is somewhat simpler: dhathe 'to eat (trans.)', wadha'the 'to eat (intrans.); food'. It appears, however, that Dakotan wo'te 'food' does exist. Gilmore (1977), originally printed in 1914 lists the following plant names. Note that Gilmore's Linnaean binomials are generally out of date. "pispiza ta wote" (prairie-dog its-food) = Boerbera papposa 'prairie-dog fennel; fetid marigold' "zuzecha ta wote" (snake its-food) Celastrus scandens 'Bittersweet' "pte ta wote" (buffalo its-food) Geoprumnon crassicarpum 'Buffalo pea; ground plum' "h.eh.aka ta pezhuta, h.eh.aka ta wote" (elk its-medicine, elk its-food) Monarda fistulosa 'Horsemint' "zuzecha ta wote sapsapa" (snake its-medicine black-here-and-there) Symphoricarpos sp. 'Coralberry; Buck brush' Somewhat similar formations: "maka ta omnicha" (earth its-beans) Falcata comosa 'Groundbean' "heyoka ta pezhuta" (contrary his-medicine) Malvastrum coccineum 'Red false mallow' "chap' ta haza" (p' = p + apostrophe) (beaver its-grape) Ribes americanum 'Wild black currant' In fact, a very similar set of forms occur in Buechel, etc. See, for example, the lists of flowers, etc., in the English index to Buechel. In most cases wote here might be better glossed as something like 'browse' or 'forage', or perhaps just 'animal food', so it is not surprising if the form doesn't appear as 'food'. The fact that it doesn't appear in its own right at all may mean that it is specialized vocabulary that has been missed or that it only occurs in longer forms at present. Students of vocabulary and cultural contact may notice that in many cases the English name is obviously a calque of the Dakota name. Now, let's consider the possibility that wo- as a prefix in forms with the gloss 'food' comes from wo'ta 'to eat (intrans.)' ~ wo'te 'food' ~ wol- 'food (combining form)'. The hypothesis here comes from Boas & Deloria (1941:71) as far as I am aware. They say (1941:70) "A number of nouns in abbreviated form (or their primary stems?) are used in compounds as classifiers. The consciousness of their derivation is not always clear as is proved by those cases in which the noun is obscured by metathesis. Examples are: waNsma'hi for mas-waN'hi (metal arrow tooth) 'iron arrowhead' ..." The on p. 71 they say "wo- food; --- wo'yute 'good'; wo'(wa)k?u '(I) give food'; -- wo'aya 'to take food to a guest'; -- wo'(wa)la '(I) ask for food'." Looking under wo- in Buechel, for example, yields: wo 'food', cf. wo'yute (i.e., a reference for the morpheme) wo'c^hiNpi 'begging, craving; hunger' wo'k?u 'to give food to' wo'la 'to beg food' wo'las?a 'a beggar' (wo'la=s?a) wo'luta 'the round of a beef animal when dried' wo'soso 'meat cut in strips or strings' (maybe not?) wo'sota 'to kill off, to kill all the game' (maybe not?) wo'yaptapi 'leavings, fragments of food' wo'yute 'food' Here I've omitted any food-related form in which wo- is plainly a locative, e.g., wo'haN 'to cook, to boil, to make a feast', i.e., 'to boil something in something'. The following forms actually have wol, although wo'lwota is a reduplicated form 'to eat (repeatedly)'. wo'lwota 'to eat' wol=i'glus^taN 'to finish eating' wo'l=wic^hayapi 'a banquet' wol=ya' 'to make a feast' This is not a large list. Unlike some other classificatory prefixes, all examples, involve verbs, or nouns derived from verbs. While it is tempting to regard some of the wo-not-wol as cases of wo- derived from wol- and there seems to be no real semantic obstacle to this, I have noticed an interesting thing. Most of the wo-forms have a corresponding o-form with a related gloss: wo'chiNpi ~ oc^hiN' 'to desire, beg, ask for' wo'k?u ~ ok?u' 'to give to, e.g., food; to give a portion to' wo'luta ~ o'lute 'thigh muscle' wo'soso ~ oso' 'to cut open' wo'sota ~ o'sota 'all gone, used up' wo'yaptapi ~ oya'pta 'to leave, have over and above what one eats' wo'yute ~ oyu'te 'eating, food' In short, the wo'- cases are all plausibly wa-indefinite object forms derived from an underlying locative in o. My impression is that while wo'- as a 'food' classifier might be influenced by the existence of wol-compounds from wo'te 'food (for animals)', what we really have etymologically is wo'- < *wa-o'- where an indefinite object is pragmatically a reference to food. This intepretation of wo'- is enhanced as suggested by Regina by the accentual pattern with wo'-, though compounds with wo'l= may also show initial accent. Different sorts of compounds show different accentual patterns. John E. Koontz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc Thu Apr 28 13:21:38 2005 From: Louis_Garcia at littlehoop.cc (Louis Garcia) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:21:38 -0500 Subject: Wo'te 'food' and Wo- 'food' in Dakota Compounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguists: While you are on the topic of food. Can one of you explain why the men who serve the food (Tiyotipi and Peziwacipi) are called Touchers (Iyutanpi)? LouieG From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 13:43:12 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:43:12 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Padouca is not attested in the early Illinois Jesuit sources. However, Pierre Potier, a Jesuit missionary at Detroit, recorded a personal name of a Native American in the form , in the mid-1700s. This is also the name of southern Wabash River tributary. I have not seen this hydronym attested until the early 1800s, in English language reports. The Miami-Illinois attestation dates only to the turn of the 20th century. Michael McCafferty Quoting Koontz John E : > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: > > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. > > > > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the > Comanches. > > In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an > unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians > are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to > their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa > included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche > suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular > cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic > groups. > > >From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the > period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so > for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French > texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and > possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward > Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and > verse on the arguments these days. > > A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern > Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the > reference remains "Northern Caddoan." > > The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round > head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and > assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been > borrowed from French. > > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Apr 28 14:29:07 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:29:07 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. This name *is* listed in the synonymy for the Comanche in HNAI 13. Dave > Padouca is not attested in the early Illinois Jesuit sources. However, Pierre > Potier, a Jesuit missionary at Detroit, recorded a personal name of a Native > American in the form , in the mid-1700s. > > This is also the name of southern Wabash River tributary. I have not seen this > hydronym attested until the early 1800s, in English language reports. > > The Miami-Illinois attestation dates only to the turn of the 20th century. > > Michael McCafferty > > > Quoting Koontz John E : > >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, David Costa wrote: >> > In various forms, it's attested in Miami, Shawnee, Sauk, and Meskwaki. >> > >> > >> In Algonquian languages, the 'Padouca' name always indicates the >> Comanches. >> >> In modern Siouan languages it refers to the Comanche, too, or to an >> unknown group. I think it's probably safer to say that ethnohistorians >> are reasonably sure that before it referred to the Comanche it refered to >> their antecedants, apparently Plains Apache gorups, perhaps with the Kiowa >> included. The more or less seemless shift from Apache to Comanche >> suggests it applies to people forma given area, or with a particular >> cultural or subsistance pattern, rather than to specific linguistic >> groups. >> >> >From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the >> period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so >> for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French >> texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and >> possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward >> Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and >> verse on the arguments these days. >> >> A somewhat similar pattern exists for the various terms for Northern >> Caddoan groups which lead to modern English Pawnee, except that the >> reference remains "Northern Caddoan." >> >> The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round >> head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and >> assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been >> borrowed from French. >> >> > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 14:52:41 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:52:41 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <42702E19.3070202@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des > Padoucas". > > Alan That would indicate that the French distinguished the Padoucas from the Apaches by 1718. The Padoucas were certainly known directly to the Pawnee and the lower Missouri Valley Siouan tribes, who were at war with them around this time. I understand that the French even encouraged a slave trade of which Padoucas were among the main victims. The French became established on the middle Mississippi, in the area around the Ohio and Missouri River mouths from the time of the Marquette-Jolliet expedition of 1673. They chose the Osage on the Missouri as their primary allies in that direction. In 1724, Bourgmont made his celebrated and officially well-supported expedition west up the Kansas River to meet the Padoucas and make peace with them to allow French traders to cross the Plains to trade with the Spanish of New Mexico. So the period in which the French became acquainted with the Padouca as an ethnic group can probably be bracketed between 1673 and 1724, or about half a century. I think the question is whether the Padouca were known by that name to other Indian nations far and wide across the continent, and continuously down to the time that vocabularies were collected, such that the Algonquian groups mentioned by David provide independent evidence of the original meaning of "Padouca", or whether the "Padouca" name was used primarily by Caddoans and Siouans of the lower Missouri region, from whom the French picked it up around 1700, and the Miami, Shawnee, Sauk and Mesquakie after about 1846. I was thinking that the Algonquianists might know of earier written records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that they might be able to tell by internal evidence among these groups. Rory From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 15:45:49 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:45:49 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I might have missed something in this Padouca discussion. What language does the word come from; what's the etymology? Michael Quoting Rory M Larson : I was > thinking that the Algonquianists might know of earier written > records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that they might be > able to tell by internal evidence among these groups. Like I said earlier today, it's not in the early Illinois material, as far I as know. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:07:21 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:07:21 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114649535.427033bfa6ad2@mail4.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Good catch, Ardis! I got this off a web site for the town: The site was chosen by George Rogers Clark during the Revolution and the first settlers probably arrived around 1821. The early settlement was known as Pekin. In 1827 the town was laid out by Clark's brother William who selected the name Paducah to honor the legendary Chickasaw leader, Chief Paduke (or it may be the name of a group of Comanches known as the Padoucas). I'm inclined to suspect that the Chickasaw Chief Paduke is probably the basis for the name here. In any case, it seems to be an arbitrary name, like one would expect the founders of a town to come up with. If it does refer to the Padoucas, it is probably coming through the English of the western frontier, and not through local Algonquian. Rory are2 at buffalo.edu Sent by: owner-siouan at list To s.colorado.edu siouan at lists.colorado.edu cc 04/27/2005 07:52 Subject PM Re: Padouca Please respond to siouan at lists.colo rado.edu For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) That's a bit East. > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > des > Padoucas". > > Alan > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:28:04 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:28:04 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114703149.4271052d9e750@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: > I might have missed something in this Padouca discussion. What language does > the word come from; what's the etymology? > > Michael We don't know the language or etymology, but it is probably from lower Missouri Siouan, perhaps Osage or Iowa-Oto. John had a couple of good paragraphs on it: > From the pre-Comanche through the early Comanche periods we are in the > period before vocabulary lists for Siouan languages, and very nearly so > for Miami-Illinois. The sources for the term(s) in this period are French > texts. The source of the form seems to be Dhegiha, Ioway-Otoe and > possibly Miami-Illinois sources, presumably with a tendency toward > Miami-Illinois intermediaries. I'm not really able to site chapter and > verse on the arguments these days. > > [...] > > The etymologies for both terms are obscure, though Padouca might be 'round > head', assuming that some u and n confusion was involved early on, and > assuming that the term as it occurs in some modern languages has been > borrowed from French. The /pa/ part would probably be 'head', or 'nose'. The "douca' part might be Osage duka, 'wet', or doNka, 'short and stubby, like a bear's tail'. (La Flesche Osage dictionary) I don't know if that is what John has in mind for his suggested gloss 'round'; I don't recognize it otherwise. John? Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 16:39:04 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David wrote: > For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, > Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. > However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an > Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would seem to provide support for the view that the name was widespread and the concept well known to speakers of native languages across much of the country. Do we have any sense of what the context of use might have been for the Indiana speaker? I.e., local east-of- the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via communication with Oklahoma relatives? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 16:56:02 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:56:02 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > The /pa/ part would probably be 'head', or 'nose'. The "douca' part > might be Osage duka, 'wet', or doNka, 'short and stubby, like a bear's > tail'. (La Flesche Osage dictionary) I don't know if that is what > John has in mind for his suggested gloss 'round'; I don't recognize it > otherwise. John? Yep, something like ppatoNkka. But that could amount to forcing an unrecognized [paduka] or [padoka] into a recognizable shape and transparent etymology, like English crayfish < French ecrevisse. Over the years we've seen a number of similar processes in contemporary Siouan languages as people struggle to explain various obscure terms. Nature abhors a vaccuum, and we her children abhor opaque words. The thing to bear in mind is that once a term was in circulation in French and later English, it could be reintroduced from French (or English) into Siouan and Algonquian languages. In short, there is no secure etymology for Padouca (or for Pawnee). I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it now, the term is attested for MI only in modern times. I did wonder if it might be possible to make something of Osage ppadoNkka 'stubby head' and some of the other attested terms for the Comanche that Doug lists, including 'bald heads' (in French) and thahiN (deer hair) (in Dakota). Perhaps these are all reference to a particular way of cutting the hair, a sort of crew cut? I've never heard of anything like that, however. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Thu Apr 28 16:57:07 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:57:07 -0700 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: It's really not easy to tell, but there are indications in the historical records that the Illinois and Miami did go on buffalo hunts into the Great Plains west of the Mississippi. And the Miami-Illinois speaking peoples had names for many other tribes that they never lived anywhere near, like the Yuchi, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Stockbridge, Tuscarora, and Pawnee. My opinion is that Midwestern/Great Lakes tribes were tremendously mobile prior to the 1700's, much more than we now realize. Dave > David wrote: >> For what it's worth, this name seems not to be attested in Miami, Sauk, >> Shawnee, or Meskwaki before the late 1800's. But that doesn't mean much. >> However, the attestation of this word from Miami probably came from an >> Indiana speaker, not an Oklahoma speaker. > That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would seem to > provide support for the view that the name was widespread and the concept well > known to speakers of native languages across much of the country. Do we have > any sense of what the context of use might have been for the Indiana speaker? > I.e., local east-of- the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via > communication with Oklahoma relatives? > Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 17:04:50 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:04:50 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > That was one of the avenues I was wondering about, and that would > seem to provide support for the view that the name was widespread > and the concept well known to speakers of native languages across > much of the country. Do we have any sense of what the context of > use might have been for the Indiana speaker? I.e., local east-of- > the-Mississippi tradition, vs. knowledge of Padoucas via communication > with Oklahoma relatives? I could be wrong, but my suspicion would be that terms known from Indiana could perhaps be attributed to French-moderated social intercourse within the French province of "the Illinois" and its subsequent French, Spanish, and American "the Missouri," Generally speaking, in both cases, the situation in the 1700s-early 1800s in St. Louis and environs. On the other hand, terms from Oklahoma could reflect English-moderated social intercourse in "Indian Territory" from c. 1840 or so on. Some of the same ethnonyms - Padouca, (A)Kansa, etc. - seem to occur in different senses and somtimes different forms in the two contexts, and consequently change meaning over time, noticeably so in the case of groups participating in both contexts. Unfortunately, in both cases, unless a form is attested clearly early on, it's not easy to refer it to a pre-Contact period. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 18:15:20 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:15:20 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty > definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after > the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame > for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly > good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it > now, the term is attested for MI only in modern times. I seem to recall that the Plains Apache were pushed out and replaced by the Commanche at some point, but I couldn't remember quite when. I take it that happened about 1750? However, this information makes it a little harder to interpret the item given earlier by Alan: > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. we > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et des > Padoucas". Apparently Padoucas were distinguished from Apaches as early as 1718. Would these have been separate tribes of Apache speakers at that time? Also, we've been discussing the "Padouca" term from the east so far. What about the southwest? Did the Spanish record any such name? Rory From mmccaffe at indiana.edu Thu Apr 28 18:40:37 2005 From: mmccaffe at indiana.edu (Michael McCafferty) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:40:37 -0500 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One more brief thought: This name is also seen in the Illinois Country in the 1700s. I would have to dig around, but I'm pretty sure there was a Marie Padouca at Kaskaskia, among a few others with this name. Michael Quoting Rory M Larson : > Good catch, Ardis! I got this off a web site for the town: > > > The site was chosen by George Rogers Clark during the Revolution and the > first settlers probably arrived around 1821. The early settlement was > known as Pekin. In 1827 the town was laid out by Clark's brother William > who selected the name Paducah to honor the legendary Chickasaw leader, > Chief Paduke (or it may be the name of a group of Comanches known as the > Padoucas). > > > > > > I'm inclined to suspect that the Chickasaw Chief Paduke is > probably the basis for the name here. In any case, it seems > to be an arbitrary name, like one would expect the founders > of a town to come up with. If it does refer to the Padoucas, > it is probably coming through the English of the western frontier, > and not through local Algonquian. > > Rory > > > > > > are2 at buffalo.edu > Sent by: > owner-siouan at list To > s.colorado.edu siouan at lists.colorado.edu > cc > > 04/27/2005 07:52 Subject > PM Re: Padouca > > > Please respond to > siouan at lists.colo > rado.edu > > > > > > > For what it's worth, there is a Padukah, Kentucky. (All quilters know > this, it is the holy grail of quilting.) > That's a bit East. > > > > > SOMEbody used the name a lot earlier: in the first decade of the 18c. > > we > > have French Panetonka and Panetoca, and in 1718 "Pays des Apaches et > > des > > Padoucas". > > > > Alan > > > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 19:45:10 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:45:10 -0500 Subject: Padouca Message-ID: Nobody knows, and it doesn't have one. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Padouca >I might have missed something in this Padouca >discussion. What language does > the word come from; what's the etymology? > > Michael > > Quoting Rory M Larson : > > I was >> thinking that the Algonquianists might know of >> earier written >> records of the name in Algonquian contexts, or that >> they might be >> able to tell by internal evidence among these >> groups. > > Like I said earlier today, it's not in the early > Illinois material, as far I > as know. > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 20:03:47 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:03:47 -0500 Subject: Padouca. Message-ID: Well, now that we haven't solved the Padouca question, does anybody know anything about the Iatan matter? Inquiring minds want to know. I forgot to see if it was mentioned anywhere in the various synonymies in HNAI. I was also wondering just when the Comanches became really separate from the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much earlier than the period we're talking about. Bob From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 20:24:25 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:24:25 -0600 Subject: Padouca In-Reply-To: <1114713637.42712e258adc7@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 mmccaffe at indiana.edu wrote: > This name is also seen in the Illinois Country in the 1700s. I would have to > dig around, but I'm pretty sure there was a Marie Padouca at Kaskaskia, among > a few others with this name. Yes, I's sure I've seen names like that in Nasatir or Houck. Also, in pointing to the difficulties of separating out direct transmission of ethnonyms between Native American groups and via mediating languages like French, I didn't mean to imply that I doubted that the first could occur, or that connections might not be far flung. Pre-Contact trading connections and simple information exchange were probably at least as big a factor in this as hunting expeditions. Direct trade between Native American groups remained important after contact, though I think some elements of it may have disappeared. The Comanche are particularly associated with the horse trade, and the Osage traded both slaves and horses. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Apr 28 20:28:12 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:28:12 -0600 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <007501c54c2d$67735c60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > Well, now that we haven't solved the Padouca question, does anybody know > anything about the Iatan matter? Inquiring minds want to know. I > forgot to see if it was mentioned anywhere in the various synonymies in > HNAI. I did look. Doug Parks did the synonymy for the HBNAI Plains Volume chapter on the Comanche. He says the origin and etymology of Laytane ~ Naytane ~ Ietan (spelling from memory) are unknown. He discusses Padouca at length. From ahartley at d.umn.edu Thu Apr 28 20:55:42 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:55:42 -0500 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <007501c54c2d$67735c60$04b5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: R. Rankin wrote: > I was also wondering just when the Comanches became really separate from > the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much earlier than the > period we're talking about. Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders from Illinois and Louisiana." Alan From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 21:29:53 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:29:53 -0500 Subject: Padouca. Message-ID: Thanks to you and John for looking up things that I couldn't remember to do when I was at the office today! Well, it looks like the Comanches separate from the other Numic tribes just about the time our mystery terms start appearing in the literature. All I can say about Iatan is that I think it likely that this Otoe chief probably got into a fight with a (Comanche??) chief or group with the Iatan name, beat them and took the name as a trophy. That would be my best guess anyway. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan H. Hartley" To: Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Padouca. > R. Rankin wrote: > >> I was also wondering just when the Comanches became >> really separate from >> the Shoshones -- I guess that must have been much >> earlier than the >> period we're talking about. > > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem > to say. He does say > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including > the ancestors of > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since > the 1500s", and > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the > Plains Apacheans > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico > and the Plains... > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations > with French traders > from Illinois and Louisiana." > > Alan > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Apr 28 23:01:25 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:01:25 -0500 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: <42714DCE.9000900@d.umn.edu> Message-ID: John wrote: > I checked the HBNAI synonymy for Comanche (by Doug Parks) and he's pretty > definite (with references) about Padouca referring to Apache, even after > the Commanche first appear, though usage is complex. The time frame > for the shift is later than I recalled, after c. 1750, so after fairly > good Miami-Illinois materials were available, though, as I understand it So "Padouca" originally referred to the Plains Apache, but shifted to mean 'Commanche' after about 1750, when the latter ousted the former. But Alan writes: > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders > from Illinois and Louisiana." which implies that displacement of the Plains Apache by the Commanche took place a generation earlier, by the 1730s. The beginning of direct trade relations between the Padouka and the French can be dated to the Bourgmont expedition to the Padoukas in 1724. The last sentence in Alan's paragraph suggests that Kavanaugh is regarding the Padoucas with whom Bourgmont opened friendly relations as Commanches, not Apaches. If he is right, we might consider the following scenario. In the early 1720s, just before Bourgmont leads his expedition west to meet the troublesome Padouca (Plains Apache), the original bearers of that name are locally defeated by the Commanches, who at that time are known as Hayaton/Layaton/Ayatan, or whatever. Bourgmont's mission for France is to meet and make peace with the Padouca, who are cordially hated by all the eastern Plains tribes who are France's allies. Previous attempts to contact them have failed, owing to the opposition of the latter groups. But when Bourgmont sets out, avenues open for him, and some of these eastern Plains tribes even sent representatives to accompany him. He meets, not the original Padouca, but a group of Commanches flush with victory over their enemies and more than eager to establish an alliance and trade with the French and their Indian allies. The expedition is a resounding success, and it is entirely to Bourgmont's interest to represent his new allies as Padouca to his French patrons, in fulfillment of the mission he had been assigned. From this time forward, the Commanches are the Padouca from the French point of view. Moreover, with the material advantages they gain through trade with the French, the Commanches are able to consolidate their original victory and drive out the Plains Apache altogether. Linguistically, this would explain the ambiguity in the meaning of the name as used by the French, but the Indians might be slower to adopt the confusion. Hence, a term for the Commanche that came directly through Iowa-Oto would still be Ayaton, the name by which that group was originally known to the Iowas and Otos. This hypothesis is admittedly a large cloth woven with scanty material, and Alan's earlier mention of a distinction between Apaches and Padoucas from a few years before Bourgmont's expedition provides a snag upon which it could tear. Still, I think a model somewhat like this would explain a lot. Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Apr 28 22:52:05 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (R. Rankin) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:52:05 -0500 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. Message-ID: All, I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red men) 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = wi-tcha'-sha red man 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha Indians, people = We-shota Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in Riggs's Dakota) + sha 'red'? Is this a commonly accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota after all? I pass these comments and questions on to you in the hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. Bob From wablenica at mail.ru Thu Apr 28 23:35:31 2005 From: wablenica at mail.ru (Constantine Chmielnicki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:35:31 +0400 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. In-Reply-To: <004d01c54c44$e764d7c0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: We should also count in Assiniboin "wiNc^ha's^ta" In Albert White Hat Jr. "Reading and writing the Lakota language" (1999) the "red-man" hypothesis is also stated. Can it be folk etymology like S^ahiyela for Cheyenne (S^a-(h)-iyA-la, red-talk-little)? Interestingly, there are more examples of D. s^t -> L. s^ change : es^(t)a, "although", toks^(t)a ( All, RR> I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian RR> asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', RR> variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was RR> looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the RR> word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found RR> that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' -sha RR> 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: RR> 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = RR> wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red RR> men) RR> 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden RR> 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = RR> wi-tcha'-sha red man RR> 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha RR> Indians, people = We-shota RR> Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha RR> as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in RR> Riggs's Dakota) sha 'red'? Is this a commonly RR> accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the RR> language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an RR> arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? RR> What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? RR> Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota RR> only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota RR> somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota RR> after all? RR> I pass these comments and questions on to you in the RR> hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. RR> Bob -- Best regards, Wablenica mailto:wablenica at mail.ru From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 29 00:51:43 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:43 -0600 Subject: Padouca. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > So "Padouca" originally referred to the Plains Apache, but shifted to > mean 'Commanche' after about 1750, when the latter ousted the former. > But Alan writes: > > > Thomas Kavanaugh ("Comanche", HNAI 13) doesn't seem to say. He does say > > (p. 886) that "Shoshonean-speaking peoples, including the ancestors of > > the Comanche, have lived on the Northern Plains since the 1500s", and > > (ibid.) "By the 1730s, the Comanche had displaced the Plains Apacheans > > and gained control of the trade between New Mexico and the Plains... > > Meanwhile, other Comanches had established relations with French traders > > from Illinois and Louisiana." HBNAI (same article) indicates that for a time the two groups coexisted and that Padouca continued mostly to refer to the Apache as opposed to the Comanche. I gather the changeover must have been gradual. It's probably best for us all to read the article and some of the references for details and concentrate on linguistic issues here! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Apr 29 01:29:05 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:29:05 -0600 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. In-Reply-To: <004d01c54c44$e764d7c0$2fb5ed81@Rankin> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, R. Rankin wrote: > I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian asking about the > Dakota term for 'man, person', variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney > wiNcha. He was looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the > word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found that 'wichasha' was > analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha 'red' = red-man or Indian. I guess there's no reason why wic^ha-s^a 'man-red' wouldn't work analytically, though I'd feel better if I could explain the variants wic^hasta, etc., in the same breath. However, the two variants, plus the use of incorporated wic^ha- as the third person plural animate object marker both suggest a compound wic^ha-s^a. Wic^ha- as a pronominal here seems to replace wa- INDEFINITE OBJECT, THIRD PERSON ANIMATE PLURAL OBJECT in other Mississippi Valley groups. In addition, there's precedent in the historical period for 'red man' as a term for Native Americans in, e.g., Omaha-Ponca. On the other hand, I suspect wic^has^a/wic^hasta/etc. are a lot older than Contact, though I don't know what the earliest attestation would be. Native Americans would probably not have any reason to consider themselves in terms of some uniform labelling color-term before encountering other hues of men (outside the aboriginal range), and the perception of their own varied hues as red is fairly arbitrary. One possibility that occurs to me is that wic^has^a is a punning substitution for wic^hasta. It's only in Teton, right? This would have to be one heck of a succcessful pun, however. Can anyone think of any similar successful pun? Is there any evidence for a shift from wic^hasta to wic^has^a in the historical period? A suggestion I've offered in the past is that wic^haSta is from *wiyaS- -a (theme formant) or ta (no ideas). I'd actually expect wic^haz^a in this case, however. The *wiyaS- root here resembles OP waz^az^e < *wayas^-e 'Osage', though wi- < *wa-i- INDEF-MEANS differs from simple wa- INDEF. There is a root *yaS- 'name', cf., OP iz^az^e 'name', Da c^haz^e' 'name'. I think I went over the details of this on the list once a while back, and they could be found by searching in the list archive at http://www.linguistlist.org. > 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha > Indians, people = We-shota I haven't run into wis^ota. I suppose the construction could be made into wi-s^ota ??? smokey. The *s^ot- root is perhaps related by fricative grading to *xot- 'gray'(Da s^ota, xota, OP s^ude, xude). If you look at Dhegiha forms, which as far as 'person' proper aren't cognate, you'd expect second elements in 'person' compounds to be something meaning 'little', cf., nikkas^iNga, s^iNgaz^iNga, etc. As far as -sta, could this be a fricative-grading variant of -xta in the sense 'real, true'? From jurga at ou.edu Fri Apr 29 04:44:28 2005 From: jurga at ou.edu (jurga at ou.edu) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:44:28 -0500 Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. Message-ID: Bob, Here is Lakota scholar and speaker Albert White Hat's (Rosebud Sioux Reservation) analysis of "wic^as^a": Wic^a, "a male"; s^a, "adornment". "S^a" is a short form of s^aic^'iye, "to dress up". Buechel (1983:460) translates s^aic^'iye as "to paint one's self red" or "to dress well". Albert's interpretation of the word focuses not on the color red, but on the aspect of maturity and responsibility that the adornment implies for the male. According to him, the term wic^as^a implies a position of honor which he achieves through exhibiting the maturity of his actions. References: Buechel, Eugene. 1983. Lakota-English Dictionary. Ed. by Paul Manhart. Pine Ridge, SD: Red Cloud Indian School. White Hat, Albert, Sr. 1999. Reading and Writing the Lakota Language: Lakota Iyapi un Wowapi nahan Yawapi. Ed. by Jael Kampfe. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Jurga ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Rankin" Date: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 pm Subject: Dakotan ''wichasha'' 'man'. > All, > > I have a note from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian > asking about the Dakota term for 'man, person', > variously wichasha, wichashta; Stoney wiNcha. He was > looking at some of the earliest transcriptions of the > word in accounts from the mid 19th century and found > that 'wichasha' was analyzed as wicha 'man' + -sha > 'red' = red-man or Indian. Here are his citations: > > 1) Bruce Husband, Ft. Laramie, June 26, 1849. man = > wi-tsha Indian; people = witshasha (note: Literally=Red > men) > > 2) Ferdinand V. Hayden, Lakhota vocab (cf. Hayden > 1862:378). man = wi-tcha'-sha Indians, people = > wi-tcha'-sha red man > > 3) Albert Bierstadt, Lakhota, 1863. man = wicha > Indians, people = We-shota > > Is there an argument (for or) against taking wichhAsha > as etymologically wichhA 'man, male human' (as also in > Riggs's Dakota) + sha 'red'? Is this a commonly > accepted reading/analysis of people who speak the > language? Or is the ending/augment -sha or -shta an > arbitrary addition, essentially an empty morph? > > What do you make of Bierstadt's form We-shota? > > Any chance the -shta of Dakota is connected to (Lakhota > only?) shota 'muddy'? Or is the -shta of Dakota > somehow cognate with the -sha of Yankton and Lakhota > after all? > > I pass these comments and questions on to you in the > hope that you can shed more light on them than I can. > > Bob > > >