argument structure k'u etc.

[ROOD DAVID S]

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. Tüting" 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>