argument structure k'u etc.

[REGINA PUSTET]

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 <bi1 at soas.ac.uk> wrote:On 22/4/05 7:13 am, "REGINA PUSTET" <pustetrm at yahoo.com> 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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20050423/b7ed19eb/attachment.html>