Postulated wo- 'food' in Dakotan (Re: argument structure k'u etc.)

[Koontz John E]

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?