argument structure k'u etc.

[Bruce Ingham]

On 23/4/05 7:52 pm, "REGINA PUSTET" <pustetrm at yahoo.com> 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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20050426/719b2a5e/attachment.html>