From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 8 22:52:11 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:52:11 +0000 Subject: entering a name on the list Message-ID: Could someone tell me how to enter a new person on the list or alternatively send the information to my PhD student KIrsty Rowan kr2 at soas.ac.uk who would like to have information on the Siouan languages and is interested in attending the conference in Montana this year Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/ From jmcbride at kawnation.com Fri Dec 9 14:58:44 2005 From: jmcbride at kawnation.com (Justin McBride) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:58:44 -0600 Subject: Kaw Announcements Message-ID: Howdy, all. While I certainly don't want to use the list for anything inappropriate, I do happen to have two announcements that might be of interest to some of you. (1) The Kaw Nation has been gracious enough to assign the Language Dept. a suite of offices in the tribe's brand new Maude McCauley Clark Rowe Social Services Building in Kaw City, OK. The facility is beautiful and more than spacious enough to house me and all my stuff. As you can imagine, I'm **very** excited about the move. Well, the tribe is, too. In fact, they're planning a huge doin's for the dedication on Friday, December 16. At 2 there will be a ribbon-cutting, followed by building tours until 4. Then we'll all eat a nice traditional meal from 4 to 6, prepared by the very same cook responsible for the delicious fare at the Siouan & Caddoan Conference back in June. The evening will close with a big dance at the Kaw City Community Building. Head Staff includes Myron Redeagle (Head Singer), John Henry Mashunkashey (MC), Joseph Jones and Colt Donelson (Kaw Whipmen, Arena Directors), Pat Freeman (Head Man, and also the Project Manager for the new building), female members of Mrs. Rowe's family (co-Head Ladies), grandsons of Mrs. Rowe (Waterboys), and the Kaw Nation Color Guard. To top it all off, Kaw City has officially declared the day to be Maude Rowe Day. And you're all invited! For those of you who may not know, back in the 1970s Maude Rowe was one of the last twenty or so Kaw fullbloods and one of only a handful who could still speak the language fluently. She was a prime mover in the Kaw cultural maintenance and revitalization efforts during that era, and almost single-handedly brought about the tribe's now annual powwow. She was also the principal informant for Dr. Rankin in his Kaw language field work. So, it's quite fitting that the tribe honor her by dedicating and naming this new building in her memory. I realize a trip to Kaw City may be a little out of the way for most of the list members. But I do know there are probably some fellow Okies reading this. Anyhow, I'd love to meet with all who might make it. (2) The tribe has still not filled the Language Coordinator position that I first mentioned on the list last back in October. I really do think it's an ideal job for a recent college grad who may be wanting a few years of steady work in a language-related field. Plus, it offers a really good entry-level salary, in my opinion. And since it has taken us so long to fill it, we're now pretty much lined up with the close of most colleges' fall terms. So if there's ANYBODY out there who knows of someone willing to live and work in northern Oklahoma, please let them know about this job. Seriously, I'm desperate! Here's the announcement (don't let the wording scare you off--we're really not looking for a multilingual linguist who's also both a master teacher and a seasoned designer, although that would be awfully nice to find...): Kaw Language Project Coordinator Full time Location: Kaw City, OK Bachelor's degree preferred in the following areas: Linguistics, Native American Studies, Anthropology, Education, Computer Science, and/or the Humanities. A combination of education and work experience is acceptable if work includes at least two years in a related field. Education requirement may be satisfied with a total of at least three (3) years experience that closely relates to the duties and level of responsibility required for the position. Candidates who possess knowledge concerning any of the Dhegiha Siouan languages (Kaw, Osage, Omaha, Ponca, and Quapaw) will have preference. Applicants fluent in both English and another language are recommended. Ability to communicate and maintain effective working relationships with staff and community members are a must. For more information contact the Kaw Nation Human Resource Department at (580) 269-2552. An application can be printed from www.kawnation.com. Résumé must accompany application and submitted to PO Box 50 Kaw City, OK, 74641. Deadline is 4:00 pm, December 16, 2005. Kaw Nation maintains a drug free workplace. Thanks! Justin McBride Language Director & acting Webmaster Kaw Nation Drawer 50 Kaw City, OK 74641 PH (580) 269-2552 ext 241 FX (580) 269-2204 attn Language/Web Dev jmcbride at kawnation.com www.kawnation.com/langhome.html From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 9 17:32:28 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:32:28 +0000 Subject: Kaw Announcements In-Reply-To: <001301c5fcd1$0d3f3de0$3e01a8c0@Language> Message-ID: Congatulations Justin on the tribe's new found opulence Yours Bruce Ingham > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/ From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 10 21:40:54 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:40:54 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From ishna00 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 11 07:23:15 2005 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:23:15 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051210214054.82170.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Back when I was teaching Dakota, I always taught the students "Dual" and "Plural". That way you don't have to worry about who to include or exclude :-) Seriously though, I never heard these terms before, so if I were to make a guess, I'd say the one being included or excluded would be "you" because the "Plural" form can mean WE with or without you. Or maybe the one(s) being included or excluded is/are she, he and they, hmm... This is why I stick to "Dual" and "Plural". C. H. Thode From rankin at ku.edu Sun Dec 11 15:45:31 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:45:31 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From rankin at ku.edu Sun Dec 11 15:47:52 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:47:52 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I just read Charles Thode's summary of how it works in Dakota and I think he's right not only for Dakotan but for all of Mississippi Valley Siouan. Dhegiha seems to work that way (although I had a fairly difficulti time eliciting dual forms). I suspect Ioway-Otoe is similar but Winnebago is a mystery to me. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Thode Charles Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 1:23 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive Back when I was teaching Dakota, I always taught the students "Dual" and "Plural". That way you don't have to worry about who to include or exclude :-) Seriously though, I never heard these terms before, so if I were to make a guess, I'd say the one being included or excluded would be "you" because the "Plural" form can mean WE with or without you. Or maybe the one(s) being included or excluded is/are she, he and they, hmm... This is why I stick to "Dual" and "Plural". C. H. Thode From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 19:44:42 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:44:42 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Osage speakers told me that the dual does not necessarily include the hearer. I have many examples of this. So dual may represent 'he and I' as well as 'you and I'. Same with plural, which may be either 'they and I' or 'he and I and you' or in fact 'you all and I'. In Osage, then, 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' may be applied to either 'dual' or 'plural'. Carolyn _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 21:49:30 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:49:30 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at peoplepc.com Mon Dec 12 02:33:33 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:33:33 -0600 Subject: Fw: Osage holiday greeting Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Masthay" To: ; ; Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: Osage holiday greeting > To all of you in SSILA: > > Back in 1985 Oklahoman Hazel Harper was one of 15 fluent speakers of the > Siouan > language called Osage, but now in 2005 there are only 3 such speakers (if > that > many) with a few others who have some knowledge of their ancestral > language > once spoken in most of Missouri. > Back in 1985 I made the holidays greeting sheet (see attachment) for > relatives, > friends, co-workers at Mosby (now Elsevier), and unsuspecting > acquaintances. > Each year I would make one with the updated year and say it out loud for > each > new co-worker and some new acquaintances gained over the year, and so some > of > you may already remember it. > Feel free to print it out to keep because of its rarity. Do you have a > color > printer? The attached is at 185 kilobytes. If you want it higher at 680 kb > for > better clarity, please let me know. You could also forward this to any of > your > friends. > > > Carl > > Carl Masthay, 838 Larkin Ave., St. Louis, MO 63141-7758 USA; (314) > 432-4231; > Please use only cmasthay at juno.com to reply. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OsageXmas1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 189970 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BARudes at aol.com Mon Dec 12 03:33:17 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:33:17 EST Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Dave, The short answer is "yes", there has been more research on the relationship of the Yuchi language to the Siouan languages that you are probably not aware of. I gave a paper back in the 1980s pointing out a fair number of lexical pairs among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan that appeared to be cognate. More recently, Bob has done research that demonstrates what appear to be cognate pronominal elements and a system of classificatory prefixes on nouns among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan. Bob may have done additional research that I am not aware of. The evidence taken together increases the probability that Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan are genetically related. Whether the combined weight of the evidence is sufficient to "confirm" the relationship is still a matter of debate for some. I should note, however, that even if the relationship is taken as "confirmed", it is not appropriate to say that Yuchi is a Siouan language. Proto-Catawban (the ancestor of modern Catawba, the Woccon language, and perhaps other extinct languages of the Carolinas) and Proto-Siouan descend from coordinate off-shoots of a language that I refer to as Proto-Siouan-Catawban. Where Yuchi fits in is uncertain. Based on such morphological features as the absence of instrumental prefixes in Yuchi versus their presence in Catawba and Siouan, I would specualte that Proto-Siouan-Catawban and Pre-Yuchi were coordinate offshoots of a still older language that, for lack of a better term at the moment, could be called Proto-Siouan-Catawban-Yuchi. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Mon Dec 12 15:50:25 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:50:25 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 16:06:40 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:06:40 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I only just read this. I think you have had it backwards. In my experience in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means excluding the addressee, and inclusive means including the addressee. In other words, 'inclusive' is 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included optionally), while 'exclusive' means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee (2nd). I'd be rather surprised to hear that 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in any other way in grammatical description. (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms fit into this.) This distinction is extremely clear-cut in Algonquian languages; more so than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, inclusive verbs take the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take the first person prefix. Dave > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is > the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of > you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. > We live and learn > Bruce > > > From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 18:47:51 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:47:51 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 23:21:18 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:21:18 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <23e.36d8cfb.30ce497d@aol.com> Message-ID: Blair, Thanks for the information. I don't know much about Yuchi but would like to learn more. I'd need several lifetimes to learn all I want to know about so many languages! (So many languages, so little time!...heh.) Dave BARudes at aol.com wrote: Dave, The short answer is "yes", there has been more research on the relationship of the Yuchi language to the Siouan languages that you are probably not aware of. I gave a paper back in the 1980s pointing out a fair number of lexical pairs among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan that appeared to be cognate. More recently, Bob has done research that demonstrates what appear to be cognate pronominal elements and a system of classificatory prefixes on nouns among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan. Bob may have done additional research that I am not aware of. The evidence taken together increases the probability that Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan are genetically related. Whether the combined weight of the evidence is sufficient to "confirm" the relationship is still a matter of debate for some. I should note, however, that even if the relationship is taken as "confirmed", it is not appropriate to say that Yuchi is a Siouan language. Proto-Catawban (the ancestor of modern Catawba, the Woccon language, and perhaps other extinct languages of the Carolinas) and Proto-Siouan descend from coordinate off-shoots of a language that I refer to as Proto-Siouan-Catawban. Where Yuchi fits in is uncertain. Based on such morphological features as the absence of instrumental prefixes in Yuchi versus their presence in Catawba and Siouan, I would specualte that Proto-Siouan-Catawban and Pre-Yuchi were coordinate offshoots of a still older language that, for lack of a better term at the moment, could be called Proto-Siouan-Catawban-Yuchi. Blair --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 13 21:01:32 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:01:32 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these involve two participants. In other languages such as Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched a bit Yours Bruce Sti--- David Costa wrote: > I only just read this. I think you have had it > backwards. In my experience > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > excluding the addressee, > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > other words, 'inclusive' is > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > optionally), while 'exclusive' > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > (2nd). > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > any other way in grammatical description. > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > fit into this.) > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > Algonquian languages; more so > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > inclusive verbs take > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > the first person > prefix. > > Dave > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > wrongly. I always thought > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > person was excluded and > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > could be included. If it is > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > rational for this use of the > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > to make more sense in Cree > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > others excluding you', > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > possibly others including > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > can mean 'more than one of > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > a dual. > > We live and learn > > Bruce > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 13 21:24:53 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:24:53 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051213210132.15892.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bruce, the way I've always understood this, the Lakota contrast is between a "dual inclusive", specifically "you (sg) and I" (without pi), and forms (with "pi") that do not signal the inclusive/exclusive distinction. For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, moreover, even the "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject roles; you have to have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's just the two of you. World-wide, I believe the contrast "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" is always a first person non-singular category and refers to the inclusion or exclusion of the addressee. Moreover, it is almost always the case that if there is regular plural morphology, and it is applied to the first person singular forms, the meaning is "exclusive", i.e. the plural of the first person is naturally "they and we, but not you". "Inclusive" has special morphology, and often seems to include relics of both first person and second person morphemes, as if saying "you and we" is necessary when "you" is included. If we can argue from this kind of pattern to the grammar of an individual language, the uniqueness of the Lakota "u(n)(k)" morpheme relative to the singular suggests that this ought to be an old "inclusive" that has expanded to cover all first person plurals. Of course, I do not consider adherence to common patterns to be proof of anything, just supporting evidence. David On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, shokooh Ingham wrote: > Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee > kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan > 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart > in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the > terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if > unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would > it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can > mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we > inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd > person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you > think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? > > I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' > strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human > beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' > also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and > wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these > involve two participants. In other languages such as > Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like > humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you > two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual > in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments > against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember > where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched > a bit > Yours > Bruce > Sti--- David Costa wrote: > > > I only just read this. I think you have had it > > backwards. In my experience > > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > > excluding the addressee, > > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > > other words, 'inclusive' is > > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > > optionally), while 'exclusive' > > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > > (2nd). > > > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > > any other way in grammatical description. > > > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > > fit into this.) > > > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > > Algonquian languages; more so > > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > > inclusive verbs take > > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > > the first person > > prefix. > > > > Dave > > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > > about twelve years that I > > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > > wrongly. I always thought > > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > > person was excluded and > > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > > could be included. If it is > > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > > rational for this use of the > > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > > to make more sense in Cree > > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > > others excluding you', > > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > > possibly others including > > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > > can mean 'more than one of > > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > > a dual. > > > We live and learn > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 21:41:46 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:41:46 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051213210132.15892.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As for 'dual', I unlike you find it easy to think of two first persons. No problem for me there. In Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, it must be excluding 'you'. It must mean 'we three, I, Susie and John go'. Is this not right? If it means 'I, you and others' then it should be 'inclusive', that is inclusive of the hearer. Dual unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange, unless it means only 'you and I go' I've no idea what's going on here if its not this way. C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shokooh Ingham Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:02 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these involve two participants. In other languages such as Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched a bit Yours Bruce Sti--- David Costa wrote: > I only just read this. I think you have had it > backwards. In my experience > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > excluding the addressee, > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > other words, 'inclusive' is > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > optionally), while 'exclusive' > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > (2nd). > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > any other way in grammatical description. > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > fit into this.) > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > Algonquian languages; more so > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > inclusive verbs take > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > the first person > prefix. > > Dave > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > wrongly. I always thought > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > person was excluded and > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > could be included. If it is > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > rational for this use of the > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > to make more sense in Cree > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > others excluding you', > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > possibly others including > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > can mean 'more than one of > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > a dual. > > We live and learn > > Bruce > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 13 21:49:50 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:50 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > As for 'dual', I unlike you find it easy to think of two first persons. No > problem for me there. > > In Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, it must be excluding > 'you'. It must mean 'we three, I, Susie and John go'. Is this not right? > If it means 'I, you and others' then it should be 'inclusive', that is > inclusive of the hearer. > > Dual unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange, unless it means only 'you and I > go' > > I've no idea what's going on here if its not this way. > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shokooh Ingham > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:02 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee > kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan > 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart > in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the > terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if > unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would > it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can > mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we > inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd > person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you > think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? > > I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' > strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human > beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' > also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and > wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these > involve two participants. In other languages such as > Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like > humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you > two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual > in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments > against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember > where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched > a bit > Yours > Bruce > Sti--- David Costa wrote: > > > I only just read this. I think you have had it > > backwards. In my experience > > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > > excluding the addressee, > > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > > other words, 'inclusive' is > > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > > optionally), while 'exclusive' > > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > > (2nd). > > > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > > any other way in grammatical description. > > > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > > fit into this.) > > > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > > Algonquian languages; more so > > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > > inclusive verbs take > > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > > the first person > > prefix. > > > > Dave > > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > > about twelve years that I > > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > > wrongly. I always thought > > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > > person was excluded and > > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > > could be included. If it is > > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > > rational for this use of the > > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > > to make more sense in Cree > > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > > others excluding you', > > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > > possibly others including > > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > > can mean 'more than one of > > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > > a dual. > > > We live and learn > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! > Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 22:30:01 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:30:01 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Dave Costa > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Dec 13 23:18:48 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:18:48 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or not. This is certainly what the grammar seems to indicate. WE-singular is myself plus one other person, which might be you or him/her; and WE-plural is myself plus more than one other person, which might be any mixture. Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather than as uNye? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 23:31:18 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:31:18 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David, Can you tell us the plural form of unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with dual, not plural, verb ending. Thanks, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Dave Costa > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 14 00:04:31 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:04:31 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, I would be happy to hear from more speakers on this issue, but my experience is exactly as you put it at the end of your message: 'She and I went' would have to be unyaNpi. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some > point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means > 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a > separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or > not. This is certainly what the grammar seems to indicate. WE-singular is > myself plus one other person, which might be you or him/her; and WE-plural > is myself plus more than one other person, which might be any mixture. > > Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, > usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate > 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan > speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather > than as uNye? > > Rory > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 14 00:12:10 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:12:10 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi David, > > Can you tell us the plural form of > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci." > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I > had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with > dual, not plural, verb ending. I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > David > Thanks, > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that > /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first > person plural'. An 'other' category. > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't > really appropriate here. > > Dave Costa > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 00:47:28 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:47:28 -0500 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Perhaps it does it the way Algonquian would? In an Algonquian language, 'John and I left' would just be two words, "JOHN + WE LEFT." The noun is used with a first person plural verb. No conjunction or overt first person pronoun. So, for example, with Miami this would be 'John nimaacaamina'. /nimaacaamina/ = 'we (excl.) head off, go' Dave C. > I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 00:50:42 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:50:42 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let me throw in my 2 cents on the Lakota dual, based on my grammar files. Some of this might have been said before in the discussion, one way or another. First of all, the Lakota dual is a dying category of very limited use these days. Even in cases in which circumstances would require a dual (i.e. the combination of speaker and addressee, 'you and I') people tend to use the plural marker -pi in combination with uN- and its alternants. Second, I have checked on the scope of dual forms like 'uNk-ixat'e' 'you and I laugh' and the output on other pairings of persons is: *I and s/he, *you and s/he. Third, if 'you and I' function as object (patient), -pi must be present: na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'he hears us' but not *na'-uN-x'uN. If 'you and I' function as subject (agent), -pi may be present: na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'we hear him/her' OR: na'-uN-x'uN. Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Hi David, > > Can you tell us the plural form of > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci." > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I > had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with > dual, not plural, verb ending. I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > David > Thanks, > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that > /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first > person plural'. An 'other' category. > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't > really appropriate here. > > Dave Costa > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 14 00:52:39 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:52:39 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or not. Yes, I think that was what Bob Dixon was thinking in simply making it a separate category like 1st,2nd, 3rd. > Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather than as uNye? That's a question I just can't answer. On the rare occasions that Mrs. Rowe used the inclusive, however, it was invariably 'you+I' and was the subject/agent of the sentence. I think if a speaker told me that uN(k)- without -(a)pi could mean 's/he and I', I'd want them to be monolingual. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 14 00:42:59 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:42:59 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Yup, as I said in my evidently-unread posting, there is no inclusive/exclusive opposition in modern Mississippi Valley Siouan languages. Period. It's 'dual-inclusive' vs. 'we'uns'. To me 'dual' refers to nominal or pronominal category in which both members of the duality have to occupy the same argument category, i.e., "I see you" wouldn't qualify as a dual in the Indo-European (and I suspect Americanist) tradition. Both participants would have to share subjecthood or objecthood, etc. As I recall Dixon's person categories are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and inclusive. Bob From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Dec 14 08:18:58 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:58 +0100 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) (without -pi) is used. One little correction: > but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', > or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. In my experience, John kichi unyanpi means 'We went with John'. 'I and John went' is expressed either with John kichi ble - 'I went with John' or Miye kichi John ye - 'John went with me'. I have a feeling that the latter is not very common, though. Jan Jan F. Ullrich Lakota Language Consortium www.lakhota.org E-mail: jfu at lakhota.org > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:12 AM > To: Carolyn Quintero > Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > Can you tell us the plural form of > > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi > kte heci." > > > > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' > excluding > > you. I had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the > > house' with dual, not plural, verb ending. > > I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I > expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally > 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John > went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. > > I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a > noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". > > Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please > correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > > > David > > Thanks, > > Carolyn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term > 'exclusive'; > > that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just > > generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. > > > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use > > isn't really appropriate here. > > > > Dave Costa > > > > > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor > inclusive -- it > > > is 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I > went' could > > > only be used to remind someone of something the two of > you had done > > > at some point; it has to be limited to two people, and only the > > > speaker and a single addressee are available. It's most > common as > > > an imperative -- unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > > > David S. Rood > > > Dept. of Linguistics > > > Univ. of Colorado > > > 295 UCB > > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > > USA > > > rood at colorado.edu > > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Dec 14 14:09:17 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:09:17 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Rory, I would be happy to hear from more speakers on this issue, but my > experience is exactly as you put it at the end of your message: 'She and I > went' would have to be unyaNpi. Thanks, David. That clarifies it somewhat to me. I think our experience in Omaha, dubious as things may be by now, is more in agreement with Carolyn's experience with Osage; i.e. WE-singular seems to mean 'myself plus any one other person', whether 'you' or 's/he'. Perhaps this is a difference between Dakotan and Dhegihan? Rory From rwd0002 at unt.edu Wed Dec 14 17:10:47 2005 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <001a01c60087$088ef790$0101a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: Quoting "Jan F. Ullrich" : > > I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and > Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) > (without -pi) is used. > Yeah, I agree with Jan and Regina on this. Willem From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 14 23:06:57 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:06:57 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Interesting that the dual /inclusive can only refer to agent/subject and not to object patient as in 'he sees you and me'. I think that emerges in Rigg's Grammar, but not explictly stated. I've never seen it mentioned explicitly before Bruce --- ROOD DAVID S wrote: > For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, > moreover, even the > "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject > roles; you have to > have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's > just the two of you. > ___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ From goodtracks at peoplepc.com Thu Dec 15 02:23:17 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:23:17 -0600 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis Message-ID: John and the List: The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? Jimm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Dec 15 03:08:20 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:08:20 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals Message-ID: The morphology may be the least interesting thing about Winnebago's inclusive and "pluralization" of Winnebago pronominals. We've seen how it works in Dakotan and in several Dhegiha cases, but here's what I make of Winnebago, depending mainly on Lipkind. 1) The plural marker =i can co-occur with all four pronominal categories, including, definitely the first person (h)a, cognate with Da wa, OP a, IO (h)a, etc. 12 (h)iN- +/- =i you+I +/- others (we-incl. du. vs. pl.) 1 (h)a- +/- =i I +/- others (I vs. we-excl. du. or pl.) 2 ra- +/- =i you +/- others (you sg. vs. pl.) 3 +/- =i s/he +/- others (3p sg. vs. pl.) (I'm ignoring the other third person plural marker!) 2) Most Siouan languages eschew transitive forms in which the inclusive agent or patient co-occurs with a first person patient or agent. Thus there are no we>me or I>us forms. Winnebago also seems to eschew combinations of the inclusive with a second person. Thus there are (apparently) no we>you or you>us forms. Anyway, Lipkind didn't seem to have any examples of them. I wish Henning were still on the list! === The Winnebago pattern with "plural" is a complete version of the sort of system Bob and Rory have been speaking about, in which the "inclusive" or "dual" or "inclusive dual" form is one of the primitive "non-plural" elements of the system, on a par with the first, second, and third persons singular. In fact, this is what Dixon and other students of southwest Pacific languages refer to as a minimal/augmented system. The minimal terms are 1, 2, 12, 3 or [+speaker -hearer], [-speaker +hearer], [+speaker +hearer] and [-speaker -hearer], though I'm not sure that the feature analysis is all that significant an improvement on the numbers. The augmented terms indicate that "others" are added to the minimal reference and appear morphologically as the minimal terms plus a plural enclitic at the end of the verb. The plural enclitic is not really a pluralizer per se, but rather an augment(er), indicating that others are added, not that multiples of the minimal reference are present. Outside of Winnebago Mississippi Valley strays from this pattern (or fails to reach it), by excluding the possibility of pairing the first person with the augment and throwing that possibility into the scenarios represented by the inclusive plus the augment. To the extent that the inclusive or dual form is eliminated in actual use you get a situation in which the unaugmented first person and the augmented (or unagumented) inclusive come to pattern like singular and plural first persons. This seems to be what has happened in Mandan, where first person singular wa- opposes first person plural ruN- (nu-), which may be a reflex of *wuNk-. As I recall there is no plural marker (or augment) in the first person in Mandan. Biloxi may take a further step and generalize the inclusive marker to both first person contexts, though the first person has so many allomorphs it is hard to be sure they all come from *(w)uNk-. On the other hand Crow and Hidatsa seem to lose the inclusive marker and just pluralize the first person, except with the Crow stative, which seems to use the independent first person plural pronoun with the third person verb. In the western Pacific the minimal/augmented pattern is fairly widespread. It is found in Austronesian, e.g., in the Philippines and New Guinea and in Australian. Apparently minimal/augmented systems are rare in the Papuan language family or families. It appears that minimaal/augmented systems have been noticed in Africa, too - not to mention midwestern North America. Examples in the Philippines would be Ilocano or Tagalog: Ilocano Tagalog min aug min aug 12 ta tayo kita tayo 1 co mi ako kami 2 mo yo ikaw kayo 3 na da siya sila See http://email.eva.mpg.de/~cysouw/pdf/cysouwPHIL.pdf for a summary of min/aug behavior in the Phlippines. I got the Tagalog data from http://www.copewithcytokines.de/TAGALOG/cope.cgi?002841. Incidentally, my the Tagalog reference gave this example: mahal kita (dear/expense + 12) = 'I love you'. An implicit reciprocal? It seems to me that in principle an augment system should indicate the addition of 1, 2, N, etc., others to the sense of the minimal term, some of these possibilities being arbitrarily noted as dual, trial, plural, etc., in descriptions that ignore the pattern. On the other hand a plural system should indicate the total number of individuals, 1 (singular), N > 1 (plural), 2 (dual), etc. Dixon's example of the Rembarrnga dative pronouns follows the augment scheme quite well: min +1 +N 12 yUkkU ngakorr-bbarrah ngakorrU 1 ngUnU yarr-bbarrah yarrU 2 kU nakor-bbarrah nakorrU 3m nawU barr-bbarrah barrU 3f ngadU barr-bbarrah barrU (See http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/archive/79/Harbour%20Remark%2004.pdf) I'm using U for barred-u. Notice that this system uses suppletion, for minimal and non-minimal terms, and the formant -bbarrah for "only one more." However, it appears to me that most of the Austronesian approaches to this sort of thing are actually minimal/plural systems. Example, Tolai (see http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/TokPisinPronouns.pdf) sg. dual trial plural 12 dor datal dat 1 iau amir amital avet 2 u amur amutal avat 3 ia dir dital diat In analyzing these, note ura 'two' and utul 'three', so dor is something like Ilocano ta + (u)r(a), datal is something like that plus (u)tal, and so on. It's interesting to see the Tok Pisin take on this, since Tolai is a big part of the local substrate of Tok Pisin. sg. dual trial plural 12 yumitupela yumitripela yumi (*yumipela) 1 mi mitupela mitripela mipela 2 yu yutupela yutripela yupela 3 em (em)tupela (em)tripela ol As I understand it, yumitupela is speaker + 1 x hearer, while yumi is speaker, plus 1 x hearer, plus unspecified others. Presumably the unspecified others can be either speakers or hearers or even persons out of the scene. Multiple speakers are presumably comes down to a question of solidarity. I do remember looking at examples of exclusive first person plurals once in a grammar of Nguna, a Polynesian Outlier language from the Austronesian. My recollection is that they weren't so much cases of people speaking in unison as narrative references reflecting solidarities, e.g., things like "They said (to someone), 'We (excl., i.e., not you) will ...'" The distinction between augment and pluralizer is moot if augmentation or plurality of 1 is indicated by suppletion, and the 12 form indicates either 1 x 1p + 1x 2p or that plus additional others. You end up with a system of the type that is traditionally characterized as singular vs. plural, with an inclusive vs. exclusive contrast in the first person plural region. But if the augmentation is indicated with a separate morpheme and the basic 12 form can only refer to one speaker + one hearer, then I think the minimal/augmented analysis looks better. It seems, though, that there may be muddy in between systems, though Dakota and Dhegiha are messy in different ways from Austronesian and particularly from Tok Pisin. It appears that inclusive might be the usual term for the basic 12 pronoun. I'd be OK with dual if we understand that it's not a number, but a person! From johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Thu Dec 15 08:21:02 2005 From: johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:02 +0100 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, I would like to add some clarifications with regard to the inclusive/ exclusive distinction in Hocank (Winnebago) from my experience. First of all, Lipkind is basically right with his analysis of forms. There is a 1A.DU.INCL hiN- meaning 'you and I'. If this form is pluralized with the suffix -wi, it is a 1A.PL.INCL. The 1SG ha- becomes a 1A.PL.EXCL with the plural marker -wi. Actually, there is no real dual form except the 'you and me' form hiN-. I would fully agree with John that we have a very similar pattern in Hocank to the ones summarized below in terms of minimal/augmented pronouns. There is not much to add to Johns presentation of the data form Austronesian and Australian languages. Perhaps, if I remeber correctly, there are also other morphosyntactic properties beside the structure of the paradigm which indicate that the 1+2 form is treated as singular in Rembarrnga, namely agreement, but I might be wrong. On the other hand, Hocank has the same distinction also in the undergoer series of pronominal affixes showing exactly the same pattern. The 1U.DU.INCL is waNanNgá- (certainly a historically recent addition to the pronominal partadigm) which can be pluralized with -wi resulting in a 1U.PL.INCL form. Interestingly, the 1U.SG form hiN- forms a 1U.PL.EXCL with -wi. (Note that 1U.SG hiN- and 1A.DU.INCL hiN- are homophonous, but they are distinct with regard to the morphological slot of the verb where they appear). So the system looks like the following : Actor 1SG ha- 1PL.EXCL ha- ... -wi 1DU hiN- 1DU.INCL hiN- ....- wi Undergoer 1SG hiN- 1PL.INCL hiN- ... -wi 1DU waNaNgá- 1PL.INCL waNaNgá- .... -wi The interesting thing about the plural marker -wi is that it may pluralize all speech act participants, no matter which syntactic/ semantic function (actor/ undergoer) they have. In addition, -wi (PL) can also pluralize both speech act participants in a transitve clause. If there is a first person acting on a second person, -wi may pluralize the actor, or the undergoer, or both of them. Disambiguation is a matter of the context. In addition, -wi alone may represent the 3PL.SUBJ, but these instances are rare in our corpus of texts. The default 3PL.SBJ marker is the suffix -ire which has only this function. Historically, Hocank -wi seems to me cognate to Lakota -pi, but there is nothing similar in Lakota like -ire. If speakers are asked for a verb form with a 3PL.SBJ, they give always forms with -ire. In transitive clauses, we have a combination of the actor and the undergoer pronouns. Reflexive configurations are avoided. Instead, the reflexive prefix ki- is used. Johns is right to point out that configurations such as I->us or you->you are forbidden. John is also right in assuming that INCL -> second person combinations are not possible. The same combinations with EXCL are, however, allowed. Let me add a final remark. It is noteworthy that there are Hocank speakers who totally gave up the inclusive/ exclusive distinction. They continue to use the different forms listed above but with no difference in meaning. They are no longer associated with the incl/excl distinction. Best, Johannes Koontz John E schrieb: >The morphology may be the least interesting thing about Winnebago's >inclusive and "pluralization" of Winnebago pronominals. We've seen how it >works in Dakotan and in several Dhegiha cases, but here's what I make of >Winnebago, depending mainly on Lipkind. > >1) The plural marker =i can co-occur with all four pronominal categories, >including, definitely the first person (h)a, cognate with Da wa, OP a, IO >(h)a, etc. > > 12 (h)iN- +/- =i you+I +/- others (we-incl. du. vs. pl.) > 1 (h)a- +/- =i I +/- others (I vs. we-excl. du. or pl.) > 2 ra- +/- =i you +/- others (you sg. vs. pl.) > 3 +/- =i s/he +/- others (3p sg. vs. pl.) > >(I'm ignoring the other third person plural marker!) > >2) Most Siouan languages eschew transitive forms in which the inclusive >agent or patient co-occurs with a first person patient or agent. Thus >there are no we>me or I>us forms. Winnebago also seems to eschew >combinations of the inclusive with a second person. Thus there are >(apparently) no we>you or you>us forms. Anyway, Lipkind didn't seem to >have any examples of them. > >I wish Henning were still on the list! > >=== > >The Winnebago pattern with "plural" is a complete version of the sort of >system Bob and Rory have been speaking about, in which the "inclusive" or >"dual" or "inclusive dual" form is one of the primitive "non-plural" >elements of the system, on a par with the first, second, and third persons >singular. > >In fact, this is what Dixon and other students of southwest Pacific >languages refer to as a minimal/augmented system. The minimal terms are >1, 2, 12, 3 or [+speaker -hearer], [-speaker +hearer], [+speaker +hearer] >and [-speaker -hearer], though I'm not sure that the feature analysis is >all that significant an improvement on the numbers. The augmented terms >indicate that "others" are added to the minimal reference and appear >morphologically as the minimal terms plus a plural enclitic at the end of >the verb. The plural enclitic is not really a pluralizer per se, but >rather an augment(er), indicating that others are added, not that >multiples of the minimal reference are present. > >Outside of Winnebago Mississippi Valley strays from this pattern (or fails >to reach it), by excluding the possibility of pairing the first person >with the augment and throwing that possibility into the scenarios >represented by the inclusive plus the augment. To the extent that the >inclusive or dual form is eliminated in actual use you get a situation in >which the unaugmented first person and the augmented (or unagumented) >inclusive come to pattern like singular and plural first persons. This >seems to be what has happened in Mandan, where first person singular wa- >opposes first person plural ruN- (nu-), which may be a reflex of *wuNk-. >As I recall there is no plural marker (or augment) in the first person in >Mandan. > >Biloxi may take a further step and generalize the inclusive marker to both >first person contexts, though the first person has so many allomorphs it >is hard to be sure they all come from *(w)uNk-. On the other hand Crow >and Hidatsa seem to lose the inclusive marker and just pluralize the first >person, except with the Crow stative, which seems to use the independent >first person plural pronoun with the third person verb. > >In the western Pacific the minimal/augmented pattern is fairly widespread. >It is found in Austronesian, e.g., in the Philippines and New Guinea and >in Australian. Apparently minimal/augmented systems are rare in the >Papuan language family or families. It appears that minimaal/augmented >systems have been noticed in Africa, too - not to mention midwestern North >America. > >Examples in the Philippines would be Ilocano or Tagalog: > > Ilocano Tagalog > > min aug min aug >12 ta tayo kita tayo >1 co mi ako kami >2 mo yo ikaw kayo >3 na da siya sila > >See http://email.eva.mpg.de/~cysouw/pdf/cysouwPHIL.pdf for a summary of >min/aug behavior in the Phlippines. I got the Tagalog data from >http://www.copewithcytokines.de/TAGALOG/cope.cgi?002841. > >Incidentally, my the Tagalog reference gave this example: mahal kita >(dear/expense + 12) = 'I love you'. An implicit reciprocal? > >It seems to me that in principle an augment system should indicate the >addition of 1, 2, N, etc., others to the sense of the minimal term, some >of these possibilities being arbitrarily noted as dual, trial, plural, >etc., in descriptions that ignore the pattern. On the other hand a plural >system should indicate the total number of individuals, 1 (singular), N > >1 (plural), 2 (dual), etc. > >Dixon's example of the Rembarrnga dative pronouns follows the augment >scheme quite well: > > min +1 +N > >12 yUkkU ngakorr-bbarrah ngakorrU >1 ngUnU yarr-bbarrah yarrU >2 kU nakor-bbarrah nakorrU >3m nawU barr-bbarrah barrU >3f ngadU barr-bbarrah barrU > >(See >http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/archive/79/Harbour%20Remark%2004.pdf) > >I'm using U for barred-u. > >Notice that this system uses suppletion, for minimal and non-minimal >terms, and the formant -bbarrah for "only one more." > >However, it appears to me that most of the Austronesian approaches to this >sort of thing are actually minimal/plural systems. > >Example, Tolai >(see http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/TokPisinPronouns.pdf) > > sg. dual trial plural >12 dor datal dat >1 iau amir amital avet >2 u amur amutal avat >3 ia dir dital diat > >In analyzing these, note ura 'two' and utul 'three', so dor is something >like Ilocano ta + (u)r(a), datal is something like that plus (u)tal, and >so on. > >It's interesting to see the Tok Pisin take on this, since Tolai is a big >part of the local substrate of Tok Pisin. > > sg. dual trial plural >12 yumitupela yumitripela yumi (*yumipela) >1 mi mitupela mitripela mipela >2 yu yutupela yutripela yupela >3 em (em)tupela (em)tripela ol > >As I understand it, yumitupela is speaker + 1 x hearer, while yumi is >speaker, plus 1 x hearer, plus unspecified others. Presumably the >unspecified others can be either speakers or hearers or even persons out >of the scene. Multiple speakers are presumably comes down to a question >of solidarity. > >I do remember looking at examples of exclusive first person plurals once >in a grammar of Nguna, a Polynesian Outlier language from the >Austronesian. My recollection is that they weren't so much cases of >people speaking in unison as narrative references reflecting solidarities, >e.g., things like "They said (to someone), 'We (excl., i.e., not you) will >...'" > >The distinction between augment and pluralizer is moot if augmentation or >plurality of 1 is indicated by suppletion, and the 12 form indicates >either 1 x 1p + 1x 2p or that plus additional others. You end up with a >system of the type that is traditionally characterized as singular vs. >plural, with an inclusive vs. exclusive contrast in the first person >plural region. But if the augmentation is indicated with a separate >morpheme and the basic 12 form can only refer to one speaker + one hearer, >then I think the minimal/augmented analysis looks better. It seems, >though, that there may be muddy in between systems, though Dakota and >Dhegiha are messy in different ways from Austronesian and particularly >from Tok Pisin. > >It appears that inclusive might be the usual term for the basic 12 >pronoun. I'd be OK with dual if we understand that it's not a number, but >a person! > > > > -- PD Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht Universität Erfurt - Philosophische Fakultät Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft Postfach 90 02 21 D-99105 Erfurt, Deutschland Tel. 0361/ 737-4202 Fax 0361/ 737-4209 johannes.helmbrecht at uni-erfurt.de http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/index.htm From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Dec 15 13:36:18 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:36:18 +0100 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > (Ján Ulrich:) I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) (without -pi) is used. << I share this view. > One little correction: but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. In my experience, John kichi unyanpi means 'We went with John'. 'I and John went' is expressed either with John kichi ble - 'I went with John' or Miye kichi John ye - 'John went with me'. << The first interpretation would be the same as my wife's use in Transylvanian Saxon: "Mer sen med Hans gegongen" - We went with John (= I went with John). BTW, the conlang lojban (to some extent influenced by American Native tongues' grammar) has: mi 1st p. sg and pl (generic): I/we do 2nd p. sg and pl (generic): you/you mi'o [miho]: me and you mi'a: I and others (exclusive you) ma'a: me and you and others do'o: you and others (exclusive me) Alfred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Dec 15 16:44:04 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:44:04 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051214230657.8850.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That's an interesting admission, Bruce, because I'm pretty sure we make that point in the Handbook sketch. I am happy to learn that I'm not the only one who can overlook minutiae in places I think I know well. I keep forgetting that Lakota also has dual demonstratives for third persons: hena'os or hena'uNs (speakers vary), etc., for 'both'. They aren't used very often. I wonder if there's an etymological connection between the -uN-s suffix and the first person forms. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, shokooh Ingham wrote: > David > Interesting that the dual /inclusive can only refer to > agent/subject and not to object patient as in 'he > sees you and me'. I think that emerges in Rigg's > Grammar, but not explictly stated. I've never seen it > mentioned explicitly before > > Bruce > --- ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > > > For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, > > moreover, even the > > "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject > > roles; you have to > > have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's > > just the two of you. > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Dec 16 04:52:23 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:52:23 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: <43A1276E.7000704@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > I would like to add some clarifications with regard to the inclusive/ > exclusive distinction in Hocank (Winnebago) from my experience. I'm extremely grateful for this Johannes! > First of all, Lipkind is basically right with his analysis of forms. > There is a 1A.DU.INCL hiN- meaning 'you and I'. If this form is > pluralized with the suffix -wi, it is a 1A.PL.INCL. I want to draw particular attention to your correction of the plural marker to =wi from my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). > The 1SG ha- becomes a 1A.PL.EXCL with the plural marker -wi. Actually, > there is no real dual form except the 'you and me' form hiN-. I'm thrilled to have this confirmed! I should state for the record, by the way, that I first learned of this pattern from a paper by Jean Charney. > I would fully agree with John that we have a very similar pattern in > Hocank to the ones summarized below in terms of minimal/augmented > pronouns. There is not much to add to Johns presentation of the data > form Austronesian and Australian languages. Probably quite a lot, of course! For one thing, I realized afterward that in terms of the examples I could discover this time around, only Siouan distinguishes the minimal and general augmented form - the "plural" - by adding a morpheme. In the Australian and Austronesian cases the minimal and general augmented (plural) forms are distinguished by suppletion. There the only cases with a separate augment marking are the duals and trials, etc. Another thing is that I have a nagging feeling that there are Austronesian examples that work like the Rembarrnga one, with the "dual augment" indicating three individuals, etc. However, I am not sure of this. > Perhaps, if I remeber correctly, there are also other morphosyntactic > properties beside the structure of the paradigm which indicate that the > 1+2 form is treated as singular in Rembarrnga, namely agreement, but I > might be wrong. You're probably right - I'm really not very well informed on the details of this pattern in Rembarrnga or elsewhere in Australian or Austronesian. There's no similar pattern in Siouan, except trivially, of course, because the pronominal marking is in the verb only. I did wonder if the fact that Hochank has a single independent pronoun ne for first and second person, per Lipkind, might be connected with this somehow. I suppose the same pronoun works for the inclusive, too? > On the other hand, As opposed to Dakotan? > Hocank has the same distinction also in the undergoer series of > pronominal affixes showing exactly the same pattern. The 1U.DU.INCL is > waNanNgá- (certainly a historically recent addition to the pronominal > partadigm) which can be pluralized with -wi resulting in a 1U.PL.INCL > form. Can you shed any light on the occurrence of -a- with waNaNga'-? Is it always there? When you call this a recent addition, are you refer to its "outside" position? > Interestingly, the 1U.SG form hiN- forms a 1U.PL.EXCL with -wi. I didn't even think to wonder about this! > (Note that 1U.SG hiN- and 1A.DU.INCL hiN- are homophonous, but they are > distinct with regard to the morphological slot of the verb where they > appear). This is pretty much in accord with matters in Dhegiha, e.g., Omaha-Ponca, where both are aN, but in different slots as well. The aN A12 acquires a trailing g before the a and u (*o) locatives, but not before the i locative: aN-g-a-... < aN + a- aN-g-u-... < aN + u- aN-dh-aN-... < i + aN I have my reasons for assuming i before aN in OP, apart from the lack of g. I don't think there's any need to assume this outside of Dhegiha, however. I don't think the trailing -g- occurs in Hochank or Ioway-Otoe, apart from the P12 waNaNg-a- for in the former. > So the system looks like the following : > > Actor > 1SG ha- > 1PL.EXCL ha- ... -wi > 1DU hiN- > 1DU.INCL hiN- ....- wi > > Undergoer > 1SG hiN- > 1PL.INCL hiN- ... -wi > 1DU waNaNgá- > 1PL.INCL waNaNgá- .... -wi > > The interesting thing about the plural marker -wi is that it may > pluralize all speech act participants, no matter which syntactic/ > semantic function (actor/ undergoer) they have. Would you call it a plural, stricting speaking, or an augment? > In addition, -wi (PL) can also pluralize both speech act participants > in a transitve clause. If there is a first person acting on a second > person, -wi may pluralize the actor, or the undergoer, or both of them. > Disambiguation is a matter of the context. In addition, -wi alone may > represent the 3PL.SUBJ, but these instances are rare in our corpus of > texts. The default 3PL.SBJ marker is the suffix -ire which has only this > function. The -ire plural has cognates with the third person in Ioway-Otoe, Mandan, and Tutelo, so this is apparently a retention from Proto-Siouan. IO also alternates it with =wi in the third person. ... > In transitive clauses, we have a combination of the actor and the > undergoer pronouns. Reflexive configurations are avoided. Instead, the > reflexive prefix ki- is used. Johns is right to point out that > configurations such as I->us or you->you are forbidden. John is also > right in assuming that INCL -> second person combinations are not > possible. The same combinations with EXCL are, however, allowed. I'm particularly glad to have this confirmed, as I hadn't seen it suggested anywhere else, though it is implicit in Lipkind. > Let me add a final remark. It is noteworthy that there are Hocank > speakers who totally gave up the inclusive/ exclusive distinction. They > continue to use the different forms listed above but with no difference > in meaning. They are no longer associated with the incl/excl distinction. I'm not surprised, though I couldn't have imagined the details of the direction taken. Carolyn Quintero has already described the way in which the Osage inclusive form becomes a straight dual, and the Omaha-Ponca texts seem to have the simple inclusive form only rarely, while other Siouan languages have lost it entirely, and sometimes the inclusive form as well. Regina Pustet has reported the simple inclusive form as declining in Lakhota. Both Dakotan and Dhegiha diverge from the pattern in Hochank, and I suspect that Hochank represents the original pattern here. I don't think that the minimal/augmented pattern is actually unstable, or it wouldn't be so widespread in the huge, widely distributed Austronesian family, but it might be difficult to maintain if other languages in an integrated area lack it, or in the face of a superstratum like English that lacks it. One postscript - in tracking down the Austronesian data I needed I was reminded that English once had a dual. That is, Indo-European has widespread traces, and two that remain current in English as late as Old English are the duals of the SAP pronouns, which in the nominative in OE were: s d p 1 ic wit we 2 dhu git ye Dh, of course, was written with edh or thorn, and g in git is y and c in ic is c^. Dual pronouns governed plural verbs. No trace of an inclusive, per se, in Indo-European generally, as far as I am aware, though I wonder if -otros 'others' < Latin alteres in Spanish nostotros and vosotros might be originally an exclusive marker (inverted in the second person form). Does anyone know? How about Engish we-all/we-uns? I'm not from the right dialect area to understand the implications of those. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 08:16:03 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:16:03 -0800 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals Message-ID: An inclusive/exclusive distinction in the first person plural has arisen in some modern Indo-Aryan languages. In Gujarati, for example, there are 1pl exclusive /ame/ and 1pl inclusive /a:pne/. I don't know many details, but this is apparently an areal thing, such that some southwestern languages of the north Indian area have it but not others. So another one is Marathi, but not Hindi. > No trace of an inclusive, per se, in Indo-European generally, as far as I > am aware, though I wonder if -otros 'others' < Latin alteres in Spanish > nostotros and vosotros might be originally an exclusive marker (inverted > in the second person form). Does anyone know? From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 17 19:04:56 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:04:56 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is what I found strange about the use of 'dual' here to Bruce > To me 'dual' refers to nominal or pronominal > category in which both members of the duality have > to occupy the same argument category, i.e., "I see > you" wouldn't qualify as a dual in the Indo-European > (and I suspect Americanist) tradition. Both > participants would have to share subjecthood or > objecthood, etc. As I recall Dixon's person > categories are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and inclusive. > > Bob > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Dec 19 17:05:52 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:05:52 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to thank both John Koontz and Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht for their excellent recent postings. I think they have opened up a very exciting perspective on the whole topic, and it certainly helps me to understand the motivation for the use of the terms "inclusive", "exclusive", "dual", "12", etc. I'm also happy to learn that a near-perfect example of a minimal/augmented system is preserved in a language as close to home as Winnebago! The idea of an ancestral language with four persons-- +speaker/+listener; +speaker/-listener; -speaker/+listener; -speaker/-listener-- with an augment to indicate additional others, seems to be a very good explanation for the inflectional pattern we see in Siouan. It appears from some of the examples given that languages that use the minimal/augmented system often have different augments depending on whether the number of additional others is one, (two), or many. Hocank (Winnebago) apparently does not make this distinction semantically, but it does have two different augments, =wi (< MVS *pi), and =ire. John points out that =ire has cognates in IO, Mandan, and Tutelo, and that both augments occur in the third person in both IO and Hocank: > The -ire plural has cognates with the third person in > Ioway-Otoe, Mandan, and Tutelo, so this is apparently > a retention from Proto-Siouan. IO also alternates it > with =wi in the third person. I would suggest that in the proto-language, one of these augments was a +one augment, and the other a +plural augment. We might be able to figure out which is which from a careful review of the semantic context for the alternations in Hocank and IO. One quibble: > I want to draw particular attention to your > correction of the plural marker to =wi from > my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, > where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). At one time, OP =i was regarded as a simple allomorph of =bi. I think John and I are in agreement now that these are semantically different morphemes in 19th century OP. I am skeptical of the view that they are historically cognate, though there may be evidence for this in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw of which I am not yet aware. Unless there is a very strong argument for this, I think that we should consider the alternative possibility that OP =i is related to Hocank =ire, not to MVS *=pi (> OP =bi, H =wi). Rory From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Mon Dec 19 21:56:21 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:56:21 -1100 Subject: LSA Message-ID: Hi All, I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going to go? Hope to see you there. John John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago From rankin at ku.edu Mon Dec 19 22:13:01 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:13:01 -0600 Subject: LSA Message-ID: I'm planning to be there. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of jpboyle at uchicago.edu Sent: Mon 12/19/2005 3:56 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: LSA Hi All, I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going to go? Hope to see you there. John John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 19 22:20:36 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:20:36 -0700 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: <9841207b.6d4d3753.81b1800@m4500-01.uchicago.edu> Message-ID: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 00:01:52 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:01:52 -0700 Subject: *pi (Re: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented) Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > One quibble: > > I want to draw particular attention to your > > correction of the plural marker to =wi from > > my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, > > where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). > > At one time, OP =i was regarded as a simple allomorph of =bi. I think John > and I are in agreement now that these are semantically different morphemes > in 19th century OP. Yes. > I am skeptical of the view that they are historically cognate, though > there may be evidence for this in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw of which I am not > yet aware. Unless there is a very strong argument for this, I think > that we should consider the alternative possibility that OP =i is > related to Hocank =ire, not to MVS *=pi (> OP =bi, H =wi). Although I agree that the distribution of =i and =bi doesn't work quite as I originally thought, I remain convinced that they derive from the same source. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Dec 19 23:58:41 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:58:41 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > It appears from some of the examples given that languages that use the > minimal/augmented system often have different augments depending on whether > the number of additional others is one, (two), or many. Multiple non-minimal forms are pretty common in Australian and Austronesian, though whole branches lack them and have only simple minimal/augmented pairs or singular/plural ones with inclusive/exclusive first person plurals. The multiple non-minimal forms also occur in Tok Pisin, which is closely associated with Austronesian languages that have multiple non-minimal forms. But, except for Tok Pisin, all of these Western Pacific examples seem always to involve a suppletive opposition between a minimal set and an augmented set of pronouns, and the duals, trials, etc., involve close compounding of mainly the augmented set with an additional element. In Rembarrnga - the only Australian example I looked at - this additional element works like a unit augment, and compounded with the augmented inclusive form it forms a trial, not a dual. There is no inclusive dual, unless you count the minimal inclusive form "you & me only" as a dual. In Austronesian (and Tok Pisin), the compounded element forming duals and trials is always a numeral, and all the examples of dual and trial forms I was able to lay my hands on followed a pattern of pluralization rather than augmentation. In this approach, the minimal inclusive form for "you & me only" is always marked as a dual by compounding with 'two', and the unmarked augmented form is the "you & me & others" form. The augmented inclusive form may combine with 'three' to form a trial form. We might call this pattern minimal/augmented/numerated. The numeration is slightly out of alignment with the autmentation. Tok Pisin has something very like this minimal/augmented/numerated pattern, except there is no consistent suppletion in forming augmented forms. The minimal inclusive yumi is marked dual with tupela as in Austronesian cases. The trial form yumitripela is 'you, me, and someone else' in which yumi plays the role of the augmented form. The unmarked form yumi plays the role of the unmarked augmented form 'you, me, and an unspecified number of others', maybe 'you, me, and more than one other' - it wasn't clear. The first, second, and third persons behave simply, with tupela and tripela adding one and two additional others. These forms take pela alone to form the general augmented form, except in the third person, where the suppletive form ol is found. So here the minimal and augmented series are: min aug 12 yumi(tupela) yumi (no yumipela asserted) 1 mi mipela 2 yu yupela 3 em ol (no empela?) The Austronesian and Tok Pisin compounds with numerals are often rather irregularly reduced. (I didn't include the Tok Pisin examples of this.) > Hocank (Winnebago) apparently does not make this distinction > semantically, but it does have two different augments, =wi (< MVS *pi), > and =ire. John points out that =ire has cognates in IO, Mandan, and > Tutelo, and that both augments occur in the third person in both IO and > Hocank: ... [So,] I would suggest that in the proto-language, one of > these augments was a +one augment, and the other a +plural augment. The Siouan pattern is somewhat different from the Pacific one. It has only a minimal set of pronouns, and forms the augmemted set by adding a "plural" or "augment" marker - not to the pronoun per se, but to the verb. Logically this might be something like "some" or "many" or "more," though I tend to think not. If the Siouan augments distinguished +1, +2 and +many, etc., they might be expected to correspond to numerals, roughly, even though in the Western Pacific numerals occur with plural marking rather than with augment marking. On that basis, perhaps *pi and its various correspondents can be compared to *wiN(r)- 'one', though details of the correspondences are irregular and unusual. Admittedly the *pi plural marker set is pretty irregular already, and irregular reductions in enclitic positions are plausible, cf. the patterns with numerals in Austronesian. But the *h(i)re plural is restricted to the third person, and I don't see any evidence of multiple numbers in extant Siouan augment or plural patterns, even though there are actually quite a number of different plural markers attested across Siouan. For myself I'm inclined to see *=pi as some kind of focus marker, from the various "non pluralizing" uses it encounters. I've suggested that on the list. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 04:41:33 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:41:33 -0700 Subject: *kr (RE: Tomahittan?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This was set aside to complete in Novemember and I am just now returning to it! On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm wondering what OP gdh- looks like in other Siouan languages, especially > Proto-Siouan and Southeastern? PCH *kVr- (V conditioned, but not the same) Cr kVr- Hi kVr- PMa *kr Ma kVr / __V (Vs identical) PMV *kr PDa *kR Sa hd Te gl [gl] St hn PDh *kr OP gdh [g] Os l < dl ~ gl Ks l Qu kd IO kr Wi kVr/ __V (Vs identical) Tu kVr (grV) PBO Bi kVd, kd Of kVd, kt > I think I understand that words like gdhe, gdhaN, gdhiN, gdhi, etc, > reflect an original *kire', *kiraN', *kiriN', *kiri', with the initial > *ki- being a possessive or reflexive 'action with respect to self' > element. Is this correct? This is generally assumed. However, some observations: 1) *ki is strictly speaking assumed only in forms where *k- is a dative or suus prefix in alternation with *ki- in other paradigms. 2) But it is deduced for the vertitive *k-, by analogy with the foregoing cases. 3) It's reasonably clear that many of the essentially automatic and predictable intrusive Vs in *CR clusters can be seen as secondary in synchronic or contemporary terms in languages like Winnebago or Mandan or Crow and Hidatsa, but it may be significant that something like this epenthesis is found so widely. And it is dangerous to assume that all apparently predictable vowels are actually epenthetic. In some cases they may be organic, based on comparisons with languages rthat lack epenthesis. 4) In general Siouan contains numerous traces of a reduction of earlier **(C)VCV forms to *CCV, etc. In many cases the reduced elements seem to be grammatical affixes of one kind or another: personal inflection, verb derivation markers, noun classifiers, etc. In a sense, any heavy element in initial position - clusters, aspirates, pre-aspirates, ejectives, etc., prosthetic vowels in some languages, is likely to involve some sort of reduction or re-allignment of segments. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 04:55:02 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:55:02 -0700 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis In-Reply-To: <004801c6011e$ab781c60$794095ce@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 goodtracks at peoplepc.com wrote: > The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: > "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? John (Boyle)'s or Randy's assessments on this would be more useful, I suspect, but since John hasn't responded, I gave it a look. I think the surprising -dw- cluster is to be explained as -dua-, but the initial sequence waruahi..., or ma(a)duahi... as I think it would be in G.H. Matthews, don't seem to lead to anything. Perhaps it GHM's ma a du h.e pi 'a shallow spot' or ma a du h.a ku pi 'a crease or groove in anything' are relevant. h. or under-dotted h, is x. From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Tue Dec 20 13:37:10 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:37:10 -1100 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis Message-ID: Hi All, Sorry I didn't respond to the list I didn't know how much interest there would be in a Hidatsa word. This is basically my response to Jimm: I to was troubled by the [dw] cluster as Hidatsa doesn't allow this. I think what the word really was, was: maruwahiri?isha maruwa-hiri-?-isha something-do-this.way Meaning "something that is (meant) to be done". After talking with Jimm, I found out the context of this word. It was told to him by Finigan Baker, who was a very fluent speaker. Given the context of the conversation, I think this gloss is correct. I have asked several people I work with in North Dakota and they agree with this translation. So, there is my take on it. Sorry I didn't respond to the list as a whole. John Boyle > >On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 goodtracks at peoplepc.com wrote: >> The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: >> "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? > >John (Boyle)'s or Randy's assessments on this would be more useful, I >suspect, but since John hasn't responded, I gave it a look. I think the >surprising -dw- cluster is to be explained as -dua-, but the initial >sequence waruahi..., or ma(a)duahi... as I think it would be in G.H. >Matthews, don't seem to lead to anything. Perhaps it GHM's ma a du h.e pi >'a shallow spot' or ma a du h.a ku pi 'a crease or groove in anything' are >relevant. h. or under-dotted h, is x. > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Dec 20 15:10:40 2005 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:10:40 -0600 Subject: LSA Message-ID: See y'all there! Catherine >>> rood at spot.Colorado.EDU 12/19/2005 4:20 PM >>> I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 15:41:13 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:41:13 -0800 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll give an LSA talk not on Lakota but on the exotic language German. I don't know yet if I will get stuck at LSA or will hang around SSILA more, but I'll watch out for you guys. See ya Regina Catherine Rudin wrote: See y'all there! Catherine >>> rood at spot.Colorado.EDU 12/19/2005 4:20 PM >>> I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ 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 pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 15:46:41 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:46:41 -0800 Subject: Leipzig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David The deadline is approaching, and I want to submit the paper before I forget about it in the increasing Christmas chaos. Can we leave it as it is? Best wishes + Happy Holidays Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ 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 pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:17:53 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:17:53 -0800 Subject: uh oh In-Reply-To: <20051220154641.97597.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry folks -- Of course this last message I sent to Siouanlist was for David Rood only. Apologies and Happy Holidays Regina REGINA PUSTET wrote: Hi David The deadline is approaching, and I want to submit the paper before I forget about it in the increasing Christmas chaos. Can we leave it as it is? Best wishes + Happy Holidays Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ 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 goodtracks at peoplepc.com Wed Dec 21 03:18:01 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:18:01 -0600 Subject: Fw: BLESSED HOLIDAYS TO ALL FRIENDS & RELATIVES Message-ID: Clear Day From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com Subject: Fw: BLESSED HOLIDAYS TO ALL FRIENDS & RELATIVES Kigóñe Gírokihina Báñi Chégerokan Happy Holidays and Blessed New Year & May you have three spiritual gifts of the Season MáyanPi Spirit of Christmas PEACE Wakída Gladness of Cristmas HOPE WaPíkikihi Heart of Christmas GOOD-WILL Jimm and son Paco, Grandchildren,Ahna & Sage Markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Clear Day Bkgrd.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Dec 21 18:03:47 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:03:47 -0600 Subject: Bob Rankin's chapter Message-ID: Bob Rankin's chapter The Comparative Method in Joseph & Janda Handbook of Historical Linguistics is avaiable at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/ Sample_chapter/0631195718/Joseph_001.pdf A lot of Siouan material: imagine that! Merry Cristmas and Happy New Year to all. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Dec 21 20:16:05 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:16:05 -0700 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Sorry I didn't respond to the list I didn't know how much interest there > would be in a Hidatsa word. Are you kidding? Especially in this case where several useful word formation patterns were exhibited! Also, it helps balance out the Omaha-Ponca. Though Omaha-Ponca continues to fascinate me, and clearly contains within it reflections of all things Siouan and worthy, I sometimes worry that there may be people on the list who feel they might do something desperate if they see another edh. No, as it stands the diet on the list is quite Crow-Hidatsa deficient, not to mention Mandan, Winnebago, Ioway-Otoe, and points southeasterly. Very little vitamins syntax or phonology either. Lots of spicy etymology, not much roughage. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 21 22:58:58 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:58 -0600 Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Tutelo has two first person non-singular pronominal prefixes in a hapax legomenon 'to be a man/Indian'. These are mi- and nu-. It seems then that there are two distinct 1st dual or plural markers reconstructible in Siouan, ?uN-, with messy (but definite) cognates throughout Ohio and Mississippi Valley Siouan and ruN-, found only in Mandan and Tutelo. There is otherwise no real clue what the semantic distinction between them was. Both prefixes merely exist with a first person dual and/or plural meaning. be a man/Indian (Oliverio 1996:290 citing Hale 1889) 1sg wa-mi-hta:kai 2sg wa-yi -hta:kai 3sg wa- -hta:kai 1pl mi-wa-mi-hta:kai 1pl´ mi:-wa-nu-hta:kan With 'be a man/Indian', the 1pl or inclusive forms are unique in Tutelo. Hale recorded two distinct forms labeled 1pl. Both show reflexes of Proto-Siouan mi-, /wiN-/, probably '1st person dual' (with cognates in Winnebago hiN- '1 du agent'). One duplicates -mi- inserted within the stem; the other inserts -nu-, not otherwise found in the scant Tutelo data. Hale apparently did not probe the semantic distinction between them. (The -n suffix on the 1pl' form may be modal?) Mandan alone within Siouan marks 1du/pl exclusively with the prefix ruN-, phonetically [nu-]. Note that Tutelo -nu- cannot be derived from the grammaticalized word for 'man', wa:Nk- bacause in Tutelo that incorporated pronominal is already represented in the prefix maNk- 'we-active' which does not reduce to uNk- in that language. Tutelo 'we-patient' is mae-, cognate with Crow balee. There is also a match for Mandan and Tutelo *ruN- among the Catawba object prefixes, where noN- ~ do- also marks 1st pl. There is also a match among Yuchi pronominals, where noN- marks 1st person plural exclusive. So I am convinced that we have at least two 1st (du/pl) pronominals reconstructible, *?uN- (often contaminated with *wa:Nk or *wu:Nk- 'man'), and *ruN-, which was probably exclusive at one time. Tutelo and Winnebago suggest that *wiN- may have been a specifically dual prefix, whereas *?uN- and *ruN- were inclusive and exclusive. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Thu Dec 22 00:34:34 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:34:34 EST Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Just as a clarification, the Catawba first person plural forms Bob is referring to are nu ~ du:- (not noN- ~ do-). More specifically, nu is an object proclitic on verbs (e.g. nu ká:nire: 'he/she sees us' [ká:nire: 'he/she sees it'); du:- is a pronominal stem used to form first person plural independent pronouns (e.g. dú:ta? 'we (subject)', dú:ka? 'us (object)', du: 'we (emphatic)'. The inflectional markers for first person plural subjects on verbs and possession on nouns are unrelated to nu: ~du:-: ha- with verbs that take prefixes and with inalienably possessed nouns and -?a:- with verbs that take suffixes and with alienably possessed nouns. Internal reconstruction within Catawba would suggest that nu and du:- come from earlier nu and nu:-. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:10:05 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:10:05 -0800 Subject: Happy Holidays Message-ID: Hi all, N¹pi Nithani Phi! (day + big + good) Okay, I'm not sure if this is exactly how "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas" was said in Biloxi, but N¹pi Nithani ("day big") was apparently "Merry Christmas" according to Dorsey, so I figured "day big good" was a good approximation. New Year was apparently N¹pi Nithani Towe ("day big French") or "Frenchman's Sunday" per Dorsey's translation. (Towe is also the verb "to exchange or trade.") Happy Holidays! Dave --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Dec 22 21:01:52 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:01:52 -0600 Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Thanks for the additional info. Isn't it the case though that there is perhaps no phonological distinction between [o] and [u]? And certainly not between [oN] and [uN]. Several field workers did record [do] and [noN]. The reason I ask is because Frank Siebert showed himself to be a questionable phonetician in his 1941 Quapaw notes from Oklahoma, and I have to assume he may have had problems when he got away from Algonquian distinctions. Of course Speck wasn't up even to Siebert's level unfortunately. McDavid was a professional phonetician though, although I can't say anything about his informants. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of BARudes at aol.com Sent: Wed 12/21/2005 6:34 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Just as a clarification, the Catawba first person plural forms Bob is referring to are nu ~ du:- (not noN- ~ do-). More specifically, nu is an object proclitic on verbs (e.g. nu ká:nire: 'he/she sees us' [ká:nire: 'he/she sees it'); du:- is a pronominal stem used to form first person plural independent pronouns (e.g. dú:ta? 'we (subject)', dú:ka? 'us (object)', du: 'we (emphatic)'. The inflectional markers for first person plural subjects on verbs and possession on nouns are unrelated to nu: ~du:-: ha- with verbs that take prefixes and with inalienably possessed nouns and -?a:- with verbs that take suffixes and with alienably possessed nouns. Internal reconstruction within Catawba would suggest that nu and du:- come from earlier nu and nu:-. Blair From BARudes at aol.com Thu Dec 22 22:02:55 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:02:55 EST Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Everyone - i.e. Gatschet, Speck, Michelson, Swadesh, Swanton, McDavid, Siebert - made serious transcription errors in recording Catawba vowels and citing forms from any source without carefull philological analysis and comparison with other sources can be misleading. Speck, McDavid, and Siebert all worked with with Sally Gordon; she was McDavid's sole consultant and Speck's and Siebert's primary consultant. Catawba has a total of twelve vowel phonemes, which are grouped in three sets: (1) short oral - /i e a u/, (2) long oral - /i: e: a: u:/, and (3) nasal (which are non-distinctively long) - /iN eN aN uN/. The short oral vowel /u/ appears as phonetic [u] when stressed and as a centralized rounded vowel when unstressed. The long oral vowel /u:/ appears as [o:] when stressed and as [u] when unstressed. So there is a phonetic contrast between [u] (phonemic /u/) and [o:] (phonemic /u:). The phoneme /uN/ can appear as phonetic [oN], but so can phoneme /aN/. And many of the research also wrote phonetic [cN] (nasal open-o, the result of a phonetic contraction) as [oN]. So, the first person plural morphemes nu an du: could appear phonetically as [nu] and [do:], but neither contains a nasal vowel. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Dec 23 04:35:30 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:35:30 -0600 Subject: Catawba vowels. Message-ID: Blair, Thanks for that. Lack of a u/o contrast explains the variability nicely. The Catawba evidence is very important as it shows that the Mandan (and now Tutelo) forms aren't just a fluke or descended from *?uN-. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of BARudes at aol.com Sent: Thu 12/22/2005 4:02 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Everyone - i.e. Gatschet, Speck, Michelson, Swadesh, Swanton, McDavid, Siebert - made serious transcription errors in recording Catawba vowels and citing forms from any source without carefull philological analysis and comparison with other sources can be misleading. Speck, McDavid, and Siebert all worked with with Sally Gordon; she was McDavid's sole consultant and Speck's and Siebert's primary consultant. Catawba has a total of twelve vowel phonemes, which are grouped in three sets: (1) short oral - /i e a u/, (2) long oral - /i: e: a: u:/, and (3) nasal (which are non-distinctively long) - /iN eN aN uN/. The short oral vowel /u/ appears as phonetic [u] when stressed and as a centralized rounded vowel when unstressed. The long oral vowel /u:/ appears as [o:] when stressed and as [u] when unstressed. So there is a phonetic contrast between [u] (phonemic /u/) and [o:] (phonemic /u:). The phoneme /uN/ can appear as phonetic [oN], but so can phoneme /aN/. And many of the research also wrote phonetic [cN] (nasal open-o, the result of a phonetic contraction) as [oN]. So, the first person plural morphemes nu an du: could appear phonetically as [nu] and [do:], but neither contains a nasal vowel. Blair From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 28 16:10:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:10:26 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 17:18:57 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:18:57 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would also like a copy. Thanks, Bob, Carolyn Q. _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:10 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping _____ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From mary.marino at usask.ca Thu Dec 29 18:24:30 2005 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Marino) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:24:30 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Bob I'd like a copy, too. Thanks. Mary At 10:10 AM 12/28/2005, you wrote: >I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my >draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob > >________________________________ > >From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman >Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > > >Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! > >Dave > >"Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman > Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > > > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more > research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? > > Dave > > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > Although I think Siouan languages once had a real > inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he > Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have > dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So > uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you > and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a > 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a > generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not > necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. > > The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in > other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it > in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. > Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as > an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is > intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > > I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the > disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here > distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply > outside the system? > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham > Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: inclusive/exclusive > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I have been using the terms > e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person > was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that > the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other > way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is > exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude > 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a > third party'. Possibly there is some other rational > for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know > what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where > nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others > excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) > means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also > note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in > Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether > it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which > case it would not really be a dual. > We live and learn > Bruce > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide > with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Yahoo! Shopping > Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping > > > >________________________________ > >Yahoo! Shopping >Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping > > From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Dec 30 20:48:47 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:48:47 -1100 Subject: LSA? Message-ID: Hey Linda, I was wondering how things are down at IU and if you were planning on coming to the LSA this year? Hope all is well and that you had a good holiday. All the best, John From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Dec 30 20:55:16 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:55:16 -1100 Subject: LSA? Message-ID: I've really got to stop sending things out to the entire list!! Sorry. John From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 8 22:52:11 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:52:11 +0000 Subject: entering a name on the list Message-ID: Could someone tell me how to enter a new person on the list or alternatively send the information to my PhD student KIrsty Rowan kr2 at soas.ac.uk who would like to have information on the Siouan languages and is interested in attending the conference in Montana this year Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/ From jmcbride at kawnation.com Fri Dec 9 14:58:44 2005 From: jmcbride at kawnation.com (Justin McBride) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:58:44 -0600 Subject: Kaw Announcements Message-ID: Howdy, all. While I certainly don't want to use the list for anything inappropriate, I do happen to have two announcements that might be of interest to some of you. (1) The Kaw Nation has been gracious enough to assign the Language Dept. a suite of offices in the tribe's brand new Maude McCauley Clark Rowe Social Services Building in Kaw City, OK. The facility is beautiful and more than spacious enough to house me and all my stuff. As you can imagine, I'm **very** excited about the move. Well, the tribe is, too. In fact, they're planning a huge doin's for the dedication on Friday, December 16. At 2 there will be a ribbon-cutting, followed by building tours until 4. Then we'll all eat a nice traditional meal from 4 to 6, prepared by the very same cook responsible for the delicious fare at the Siouan & Caddoan Conference back in June. The evening will close with a big dance at the Kaw City Community Building. Head Staff includes Myron Redeagle (Head Singer), John Henry Mashunkashey (MC), Joseph Jones and Colt Donelson (Kaw Whipmen, Arena Directors), Pat Freeman (Head Man, and also the Project Manager for the new building), female members of Mrs. Rowe's family (co-Head Ladies), grandsons of Mrs. Rowe (Waterboys), and the Kaw Nation Color Guard. To top it all off, Kaw City has officially declared the day to be Maude Rowe Day. And you're all invited! For those of you who may not know, back in the 1970s Maude Rowe was one of the last twenty or so Kaw fullbloods and one of only a handful who could still speak the language fluently. She was a prime mover in the Kaw cultural maintenance and revitalization efforts during that era, and almost single-handedly brought about the tribe's now annual powwow. She was also the principal informant for Dr. Rankin in his Kaw language field work. So, it's quite fitting that the tribe honor her by dedicating and naming this new building in her memory. I realize a trip to Kaw City may be a little out of the way for most of the list members. But I do know there are probably some fellow Okies reading this. Anyhow, I'd love to meet with all who might make it. (2) The tribe has still not filled the Language Coordinator position that I first mentioned on the list last back in October. I really do think it's an ideal job for a recent college grad who may be wanting a few years of steady work in a language-related field. Plus, it offers a really good entry-level salary, in my opinion. And since it has taken us so long to fill it, we're now pretty much lined up with the close of most colleges' fall terms. So if there's ANYBODY out there who knows of someone willing to live and work in northern Oklahoma, please let them know about this job. Seriously, I'm desperate! Here's the announcement (don't let the wording scare you off--we're really not looking for a multilingual linguist who's also both a master teacher and a seasoned designer, although that would be awfully nice to find...): Kaw Language Project Coordinator Full time Location: Kaw City, OK Bachelor's degree preferred in the following areas: Linguistics, Native American Studies, Anthropology, Education, Computer Science, and/or the Humanities. A combination of education and work experience is acceptable if work includes at least two years in a related field. Education requirement may be satisfied with a total of at least three (3) years experience that closely relates to the duties and level of responsibility required for the position. Candidates who possess knowledge concerning any of the Dhegiha Siouan languages (Kaw, Osage, Omaha, Ponca, and Quapaw) will have preference. Applicants fluent in both English and another language are recommended. Ability to communicate and maintain effective working relationships with staff and community members are a must. For more information contact the Kaw Nation Human Resource Department at (580) 269-2552. An application can be printed from www.kawnation.com. R?sum? must accompany application and submitted to PO Box 50 Kaw City, OK, 74641. Deadline is 4:00 pm, December 16, 2005. Kaw Nation maintains a drug free workplace. Thanks! Justin McBride Language Director & acting Webmaster Kaw Nation Drawer 50 Kaw City, OK 74641 PH (580) 269-2552 ext 241 FX (580) 269-2204 attn Language/Web Dev jmcbride at kawnation.com www.kawnation.com/langhome.html From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 9 17:32:28 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:32:28 +0000 Subject: Kaw Announcements In-Reply-To: <001301c5fcd1$0d3f3de0$3e01a8c0@Language> Message-ID: Congatulations Justin on the tribe's new found opulence Yours Bruce Ingham > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/ From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 10 21:40:54 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:40:54 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From ishna00 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 11 07:23:15 2005 From: ishna00 at hotmail.com (Thode Charles) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:23:15 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051210214054.82170.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Back when I was teaching Dakota, I always taught the students "Dual" and "Plural". That way you don't have to worry about who to include or exclude :-) Seriously though, I never heard these terms before, so if I were to make a guess, I'd say the one being included or excluded would be "you" because the "Plural" form can mean WE with or without you. Or maybe the one(s) being included or excluded is/are she, he and they, hmm... This is why I stick to "Dual" and "Plural". C. H. Thode From rankin at ku.edu Sun Dec 11 15:45:31 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:45:31 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From rankin at ku.edu Sun Dec 11 15:47:52 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:47:52 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I just read Charles Thode's summary of how it works in Dakota and I think he's right not only for Dakotan but for all of Mississippi Valley Siouan. Dhegiha seems to work that way (although I had a fairly difficulti time eliciting dual forms). I suspect Ioway-Otoe is similar but Winnebago is a mystery to me. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Thode Charles Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 1:23 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive Back when I was teaching Dakota, I always taught the students "Dual" and "Plural". That way you don't have to worry about who to include or exclude :-) Seriously though, I never heard these terms before, so if I were to make a guess, I'd say the one being included or excluded would be "you" because the "Plural" form can mean WE with or without you. Or maybe the one(s) being included or excluded is/are she, he and they, hmm... This is why I stick to "Dual" and "Plural". C. H. Thode From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 19:44:42 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:44:42 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Osage speakers told me that the dual does not necessarily include the hearer. I have many examples of this. So dual may represent 'he and I' as well as 'you and I'. Same with plural, which may be either 'they and I' or 'he and I and you' or in fact 'you all and I'. In Osage, then, 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' may be applied to either 'dual' or 'plural'. Carolyn _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 21:49:30 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:49:30 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the person addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goodtracks at peoplepc.com Mon Dec 12 02:33:33 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:33:33 -0600 Subject: Fw: Osage holiday greeting Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Masthay" To: ; ; Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: Osage holiday greeting > To all of you in SSILA: > > Back in 1985 Oklahoman Hazel Harper was one of 15 fluent speakers of the > Siouan > language called Osage, but now in 2005 there are only 3 such speakers (if > that > many) with a few others who have some knowledge of their ancestral > language > once spoken in most of Missouri. > Back in 1985 I made the holidays greeting sheet (see attachment) for > relatives, > friends, co-workers at Mosby (now Elsevier), and unsuspecting > acquaintances. > Each year I would make one with the updated year and say it out loud for > each > new co-worker and some new acquaintances gained over the year, and so some > of > you may already remember it. > Feel free to print it out to keep because of its rarity. Do you have a > color > printer? The attached is at 185 kilobytes. If you want it higher at 680 kb > for > better clarity, please let me know. You could also forward this to any of > your > friends. > > > Carl > > Carl Masthay, 838 Larkin Ave., St. Louis, MO 63141-7758 USA; (314) > 432-4231; > Please use only cmasthay at juno.com to reply. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OsageXmas1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 189970 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BARudes at aol.com Mon Dec 12 03:33:17 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:33:17 EST Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Dave, The short answer is "yes", there has been more research on the relationship of the Yuchi language to the Siouan languages that you are probably not aware of. I gave a paper back in the 1980s pointing out a fair number of lexical pairs among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan that appeared to be cognate. More recently, Bob has done research that demonstrates what appear to be cognate pronominal elements and a system of classificatory prefixes on nouns among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan. Bob may have done additional research that I am not aware of. The evidence taken together increases the probability that Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan are genetically related. Whether the combined weight of the evidence is sufficient to "confirm" the relationship is still a matter of debate for some. I should note, however, that even if the relationship is taken as "confirmed", it is not appropriate to say that Yuchi is a Siouan language. Proto-Catawban (the ancestor of modern Catawba, the Woccon language, and perhaps other extinct languages of the Carolinas) and Proto-Siouan descend from coordinate off-shoots of a language that I refer to as Proto-Siouan-Catawban. Where Yuchi fits in is uncertain. Based on such morphological features as the absence of instrumental prefixes in Yuchi versus their presence in Catawba and Siouan, I would specualte that Proto-Siouan-Catawban and Pre-Yuchi were coordinate offshoots of a still older language that, for lack of a better term at the moment, could be called Proto-Siouan-Catawban-Yuchi. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Mon Dec 12 15:50:25 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:50:25 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 16:06:40 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:06:40 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I only just read this. I think you have had it backwards. In my experience in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means excluding the addressee, and inclusive means including the addressee. In other words, 'inclusive' is 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included optionally), while 'exclusive' means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee (2nd). I'd be rather surprised to hear that 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in any other way in grammatical description. (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms fit into this.) This distinction is extremely clear-cut in Algonquian languages; more so than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, inclusive verbs take the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take the first person prefix. Dave > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is > the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of > you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. > We live and learn > Bruce > > > From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 18:47:51 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:47:51 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are there distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 23:21:18 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:21:18 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <23e.36d8cfb.30ce497d@aol.com> Message-ID: Blair, Thanks for the information. I don't know much about Yuchi but would like to learn more. I'd need several lifetimes to learn all I want to know about so many languages! (So many languages, so little time!...heh.) Dave BARudes at aol.com wrote: Dave, The short answer is "yes", there has been more research on the relationship of the Yuchi language to the Siouan languages that you are probably not aware of. I gave a paper back in the 1980s pointing out a fair number of lexical pairs among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan that appeared to be cognate. More recently, Bob has done research that demonstrates what appear to be cognate pronominal elements and a system of classificatory prefixes on nouns among Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan. Bob may have done additional research that I am not aware of. The evidence taken together increases the probability that Yuchi, Catawba, and Proto-Siouan are genetically related. Whether the combined weight of the evidence is sufficient to "confirm" the relationship is still a matter of debate for some. I should note, however, that even if the relationship is taken as "confirmed", it is not appropriate to say that Yuchi is a Siouan language. Proto-Catawban (the ancestor of modern Catawba, the Woccon language, and perhaps other extinct languages of the Carolinas) and Proto-Siouan descend from coordinate off-shoots of a language that I refer to as Proto-Siouan-Catawban. Where Yuchi fits in is uncertain. Based on such morphological features as the absence of instrumental prefixes in Yuchi versus their presence in Catawba and Siouan, I would specualte that Proto-Siouan-Catawban and Pre-Yuchi were coordinate offshoots of a still older language that, for lack of a better term at the moment, could be called Proto-Siouan-Catawban-Yuchi. Blair --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 13 21:01:32 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:01:32 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these involve two participants. In other languages such as Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched a bit Yours Bruce Sti--- David Costa wrote: > I only just read this. I think you have had it > backwards. In my experience > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > excluding the addressee, > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > other words, 'inclusive' is > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > optionally), while 'exclusive' > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > (2nd). > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > any other way in grammatical description. > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > fit into this.) > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > Algonquian languages; more so > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > inclusive verbs take > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > the first person > prefix. > > Dave > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > wrongly. I always thought > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > person was excluded and > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > could be included. If it is > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > rational for this use of the > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > to make more sense in Cree > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > others excluding you', > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > possibly others including > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > can mean 'more than one of > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > a dual. > > We live and learn > > Bruce > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 13 21:24:53 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:24:53 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051213210132.15892.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bruce, the way I've always understood this, the Lakota contrast is between a "dual inclusive", specifically "you (sg) and I" (without pi), and forms (with "pi") that do not signal the inclusive/exclusive distinction. For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, moreover, even the "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject roles; you have to have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's just the two of you. World-wide, I believe the contrast "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" is always a first person non-singular category and refers to the inclusion or exclusion of the addressee. Moreover, it is almost always the case that if there is regular plural morphology, and it is applied to the first person singular forms, the meaning is "exclusive", i.e. the plural of the first person is naturally "they and we, but not you". "Inclusive" has special morphology, and often seems to include relics of both first person and second person morphemes, as if saying "you and we" is necessary when "you" is included. If we can argue from this kind of pattern to the grammar of an individual language, the uniqueness of the Lakota "u(n)(k)" morpheme relative to the singular suggests that this ought to be an old "inclusive" that has expanded to cover all first person plurals. Of course, I do not consider adherence to common patterns to be proof of anything, just supporting evidence. David On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, shokooh Ingham wrote: > Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee > kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan > 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart > in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the > terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if > unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would > it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can > mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we > inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd > person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you > think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? > > I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' > strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human > beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' > also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and > wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these > involve two participants. In other languages such as > Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like > humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you > two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual > in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments > against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember > where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched > a bit > Yours > Bruce > Sti--- David Costa wrote: > > > I only just read this. I think you have had it > > backwards. In my experience > > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > > excluding the addressee, > > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > > other words, 'inclusive' is > > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > > optionally), while 'exclusive' > > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > > (2nd). > > > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > > any other way in grammatical description. > > > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > > fit into this.) > > > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > > Algonquian languages; more so > > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > > inclusive verbs take > > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > > the first person > > prefix. > > > > Dave > > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > > about twelve years that I > > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > > wrongly. I always thought > > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > > person was excluded and > > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > > could be included. If it is > > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > > rational for this use of the > > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > > to make more sense in Cree > > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > > others excluding you', > > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > > possibly others including > > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > > can mean 'more than one of > > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > > a dual. > > > We live and learn > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 21:41:46 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:41:46 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051213210132.15892.qmail@web26804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As for 'dual', I unlike you find it easy to think of two first persons. No problem for me there. In Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, it must be excluding 'you'. It must mean 'we three, I, Susie and John go'. Is this not right? If it means 'I, you and others' then it should be 'inclusive', that is inclusive of the hearer. Dual unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange, unless it means only 'you and I go' I've no idea what's going on here if its not this way. C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shokooh Ingham Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:02 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these involve two participants. In other languages such as Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched a bit Yours Bruce Sti--- David Costa wrote: > I only just read this. I think you have had it > backwards. In my experience > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > excluding the addressee, > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > other words, 'inclusive' is > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > optionally), while 'exclusive' > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > (2nd). > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > any other way in grammatical description. > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > fit into this.) > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > Algonquian languages; more so > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > inclusive verbs take > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > the first person > prefix. > > Dave > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > wrongly. I always thought > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > person was excluded and > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > could be included. If it is > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > rational for this use of the > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > to make more sense in Cree > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > others excluding you', > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > possibly others including > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > can mean 'more than one of > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > a dual. > > We live and learn > > Bruce > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Tue Dec 13 21:49:50 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:50 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Carolyn Quintero wrote: > As for 'dual', I unlike you find it easy to think of two first persons. No > problem for me there. > > In Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, it must be excluding > 'you'. It must mean 'we three, I, Susie and John go'. Is this not right? > If it means 'I, you and others' then it should be 'inclusive', that is > inclusive of the hearer. > > Dual unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange, unless it means only 'you and I > go' > > I've no idea what's going on here if its not this way. > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shokooh Ingham > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:02 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee > kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan > 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart > in the Handbook p 400. This makes sense, but the > terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if > unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would > it exclude? It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can > mean "I, you and others". Therefore to call unye 'we > inclusive go' seems strange. True it includes 2nd > person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'. Do you > think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists? > > I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go' > strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human > beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you' > also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and > wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals? All of these > involve two participants. In other languages such as > Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like > humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you > two'. 'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual > in the same sense. I'm sure I've seen arguments > against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember > where. Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched > a bit > Yours > Bruce > Sti--- David Costa wrote: > > > I only just read this. I think you have had it > > backwards. In my experience > > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means > > excluding the addressee, > > and inclusive means including the addressee. In > > other words, 'inclusive' is > > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included > > optionally), while 'exclusive' > > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee > > (2nd). > > > > I'd be rather surprised to hear that > > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in > > any other way in grammatical description. > > > > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms > > fit into this.) > > > > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in > > Algonquian languages; more so > > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing, > > inclusive verbs take > > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take > > the first person > > prefix. > > > > Dave > > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > > about twelve years that I > > > have been using the terms exclusive and inclusive > > wrongly. I always thought > > > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd > > person was excluded and > > > 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person > > could be included. If it is > > > the other way around, does it make sense? If > > uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it > > > excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because > > uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you > > > and a third party'. Possibly there is some other > > rational for this use of the > > > terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems > > to make more sense in Cree > > > where nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and > > others excluding you', > > > whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and > > possibly others including > > > you'. I also note that the term dual can be used > > for the uNkiye in Lakota > > > meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it > > can mean 'more than one of > > > you plus I', in which case it would not really be > > a dual. > > > We live and learn > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! > Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 22:30:01 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:30:01 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Dave Costa > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Dec 13 23:18:48 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:18:48 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or not. This is certainly what the grammar seems to indicate. WE-singular is myself plus one other person, which might be you or him/her; and WE-plural is myself plus more than one other person, which might be any mixture. Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather than as uNye? Rory From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 23:31:18 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:31:18 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David, Can you tell us the plural form of unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with dual, not plural, verb ending. Thanks, Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Dave Costa > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 14 00:04:31 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:04:31 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, I would be happy to hear from more speakers on this issue, but my experience is exactly as you put it at the end of your message: 'She and I went' would have to be unyaNpi. David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some > point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means > 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a > separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or > not. This is certainly what the grammar seems to indicate. WE-singular is > myself plus one other person, which might be you or him/her; and WE-plural > is myself plus more than one other person, which might be any mixture. > > Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, > usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate > 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan > speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather > than as uNye? > > Rory > From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 14 00:12:10 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:12:10 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi David, > > Can you tell us the plural form of > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci." > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I > had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with > dual, not plural, verb ending. I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > David > Thanks, > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that > /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first > person plural'. An 'other' category. > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't > really appropriate here. > > Dave Costa > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 00:47:28 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (david costa) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:47:28 -0500 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: Perhaps it does it the way Algonquian would? In an Algonquian language, 'John and I left' would just be two words, "JOHN + WE LEFT." The noun is used with a first person plural verb. No conjunction or overt first person pronoun. So, for example, with Miami this would be 'John nimaacaamina'. /nimaacaamina/ = 'we (excl.) head off, go' Dave C. > I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". From pustetrm at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 00:50:42 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:50:42 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let me throw in my 2 cents on the Lakota dual, based on my grammar files. Some of this might have been said before in the discussion, one way or another. First of all, the Lakota dual is a dying category of very limited use these days. Even in cases in which circumstances would require a dual (i.e. the combination of speaker and addressee, 'you and I') people tend to use the plural marker -pi in combination with uN- and its alternants. Second, I have checked on the scope of dual forms like 'uNk-ixat'e' 'you and I laugh' and the output on other pairings of persons is: *I and s/he, *you and s/he. Third, if 'you and I' function as object (patient), -pi must be present: na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'he hears us' but not *na'-uN-x'uN. If 'you and I' function as subject (agent), -pi may be present: na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'we hear him/her' OR: na'-uN-x'uN. Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: > Hi David, > > Can you tell us the plural form of > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci." > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I > had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with > dual, not plural, verb ending. I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > David > Thanks, > Carolyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that > /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first > person plural'. An 'other' category. > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't > really appropriate here. > > Dave Costa > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is > > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be > > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point; > > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single > > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin > > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > David S. Rood > > Dept. of Linguistics > > Univ. of Colorado > > 295 UCB > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > USA > > rood at colorado.edu > --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 14 00:52:39 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:52:39 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > I wonder how solid this is? 'WE', in English and Siouan, basically means 'myself plus somebody else'. In Siouan, I prefer to think of it as a separate 'person' which, like 'you' and '3rd person', can be pluralized or not. Yes, I think that was what Bob Dixon was thinking in simply making it a separate category like 1st,2nd, 3rd. > Granting that 'you and I' is the most common, and perhaps prototypical, usage of uNye, the real test is in how fluent speakers would translate 'S/he and I went'. Is it well-established, tested against numerous Dakotan speakers, that 's/he and I went' is regularly translated as uNyaNpi rather than as uNye? That's a question I just can't answer. On the rare occasions that Mrs. Rowe used the inclusive, however, it was invariably 'you+I' and was the subject/agent of the sentence. I think if a speaker told me that uN(k)- without -(a)pi could mean 's/he and I', I'd want them to be monolingual. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 14 00:42:59 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:42:59 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't really appropriate here. Yup, as I said in my evidently-unread posting, there is no inclusive/exclusive opposition in modern Mississippi Valley Siouan languages. Period. It's 'dual-inclusive' vs. 'we'uns'. To me 'dual' refers to nominal or pronominal category in which both members of the duality have to occupy the same argument category, i.e., "I see you" wouldn't qualify as a dual in the Indo-European (and I suspect Americanist) tradition. Both participants would have to share subjecthood or objecthood, etc. As I recall Dixon's person categories are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and inclusive. Bob From jfu at centrum.cz Wed Dec 14 08:18:58 2005 From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:58 +0100 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) (without -pi) is used. One little correction: > but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', > or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. In my experience, John kichi unyanpi means 'We went with John'. 'I and John went' is expressed either with John kichi ble - 'I went with John' or Miye kichi John ye - 'John went with me'. I have a feeling that the latter is not very common, though. Jan Jan F. Ullrich Lakota Language Consortium www.lakhota.org E-mail: jfu at lakhota.org > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:12 AM > To: Carolyn Quintero > Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > Can you tell us the plural form of > > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi > kte heci." > > > > > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' > excluding > > you. I had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the > > house' with dual, not plural, verb ending. > > I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I > expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally > 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John > went'. "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'. > > I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a > noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I". > > Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please > correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously. > > > David > > Thanks, > > Carolyn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive > > > > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term > 'exclusive'; > > that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just > > generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category. > > > > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use > > isn't really appropriate here. > > > > Dave Costa > > > > > > > > > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor > inclusive -- it > > > is 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I > went' could > > > only be used to remind someone of something the two of > you had done > > > at some point; it has to be limited to two people, and only the > > > speaker and a single addressee are available. It's most > common as > > > an imperative -- unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person. > > > > > > David S. Rood > > > Dept. of Linguistics > > > Univ. of Colorado > > > 295 UCB > > > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > > > USA > > > rood at colorado.edu > > > From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Dec 14 14:09:17 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:09:17 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Rory, I would be happy to hear from more speakers on this issue, but my > experience is exactly as you put it at the end of your message: 'She and I > went' would have to be unyaNpi. Thanks, David. That clarifies it somewhat to me. I think our experience in Omaha, dubious as things may be by now, is more in agreement with Carolyn's experience with Osage; i.e. WE-singular seems to mean 'myself plus any one other person', whether 'you' or 's/he'. Perhaps this is a difference between Dakotan and Dhegihan? Rory From rwd0002 at unt.edu Wed Dec 14 17:10:47 2005 From: rwd0002 at unt.edu (rwd0002 at unt.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:10:47 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <001a01c60087$088ef790$0101a8c0@ullrichnet> Message-ID: Quoting "Jan F. Ullrich" : > > I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and > Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) > (without -pi) is used. > Yeah, I agree with Jan and Regina on this. Willem From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 14 23:06:57 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:06:57 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Interesting that the dual /inclusive can only refer to agent/subject and not to object patient as in 'he sees you and me'. I think that emerges in Rigg's Grammar, but not explictly stated. I've never seen it mentioned explicitly before Bruce --- ROOD DAVID S wrote: > For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, > moreover, even the > "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject > roles; you have to > have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's > just the two of you. > ___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ From goodtracks at peoplepc.com Thu Dec 15 02:23:17 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:23:17 -0600 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis Message-ID: John and the List: The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? Jimm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Dec 15 03:08:20 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:08:20 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals Message-ID: The morphology may be the least interesting thing about Winnebago's inclusive and "pluralization" of Winnebago pronominals. We've seen how it works in Dakotan and in several Dhegiha cases, but here's what I make of Winnebago, depending mainly on Lipkind. 1) The plural marker =i can co-occur with all four pronominal categories, including, definitely the first person (h)a, cognate with Da wa, OP a, IO (h)a, etc. 12 (h)iN- +/- =i you+I +/- others (we-incl. du. vs. pl.) 1 (h)a- +/- =i I +/- others (I vs. we-excl. du. or pl.) 2 ra- +/- =i you +/- others (you sg. vs. pl.) 3 +/- =i s/he +/- others (3p sg. vs. pl.) (I'm ignoring the other third person plural marker!) 2) Most Siouan languages eschew transitive forms in which the inclusive agent or patient co-occurs with a first person patient or agent. Thus there are no we>me or I>us forms. Winnebago also seems to eschew combinations of the inclusive with a second person. Thus there are (apparently) no we>you or you>us forms. Anyway, Lipkind didn't seem to have any examples of them. I wish Henning were still on the list! === The Winnebago pattern with "plural" is a complete version of the sort of system Bob and Rory have been speaking about, in which the "inclusive" or "dual" or "inclusive dual" form is one of the primitive "non-plural" elements of the system, on a par with the first, second, and third persons singular. In fact, this is what Dixon and other students of southwest Pacific languages refer to as a minimal/augmented system. The minimal terms are 1, 2, 12, 3 or [+speaker -hearer], [-speaker +hearer], [+speaker +hearer] and [-speaker -hearer], though I'm not sure that the feature analysis is all that significant an improvement on the numbers. The augmented terms indicate that "others" are added to the minimal reference and appear morphologically as the minimal terms plus a plural enclitic at the end of the verb. The plural enclitic is not really a pluralizer per se, but rather an augment(er), indicating that others are added, not that multiples of the minimal reference are present. Outside of Winnebago Mississippi Valley strays from this pattern (or fails to reach it), by excluding the possibility of pairing the first person with the augment and throwing that possibility into the scenarios represented by the inclusive plus the augment. To the extent that the inclusive or dual form is eliminated in actual use you get a situation in which the unaugmented first person and the augmented (or unagumented) inclusive come to pattern like singular and plural first persons. This seems to be what has happened in Mandan, where first person singular wa- opposes first person plural ruN- (nu-), which may be a reflex of *wuNk-. As I recall there is no plural marker (or augment) in the first person in Mandan. Biloxi may take a further step and generalize the inclusive marker to both first person contexts, though the first person has so many allomorphs it is hard to be sure they all come from *(w)uNk-. On the other hand Crow and Hidatsa seem to lose the inclusive marker and just pluralize the first person, except with the Crow stative, which seems to use the independent first person plural pronoun with the third person verb. In the western Pacific the minimal/augmented pattern is fairly widespread. It is found in Austronesian, e.g., in the Philippines and New Guinea and in Australian. Apparently minimal/augmented systems are rare in the Papuan language family or families. It appears that minimaal/augmented systems have been noticed in Africa, too - not to mention midwestern North America. Examples in the Philippines would be Ilocano or Tagalog: Ilocano Tagalog min aug min aug 12 ta tayo kita tayo 1 co mi ako kami 2 mo yo ikaw kayo 3 na da siya sila See http://email.eva.mpg.de/~cysouw/pdf/cysouwPHIL.pdf for a summary of min/aug behavior in the Phlippines. I got the Tagalog data from http://www.copewithcytokines.de/TAGALOG/cope.cgi?002841. Incidentally, my the Tagalog reference gave this example: mahal kita (dear/expense + 12) = 'I love you'. An implicit reciprocal? It seems to me that in principle an augment system should indicate the addition of 1, 2, N, etc., others to the sense of the minimal term, some of these possibilities being arbitrarily noted as dual, trial, plural, etc., in descriptions that ignore the pattern. On the other hand a plural system should indicate the total number of individuals, 1 (singular), N > 1 (plural), 2 (dual), etc. Dixon's example of the Rembarrnga dative pronouns follows the augment scheme quite well: min +1 +N 12 yUkkU ngakorr-bbarrah ngakorrU 1 ngUnU yarr-bbarrah yarrU 2 kU nakor-bbarrah nakorrU 3m nawU barr-bbarrah barrU 3f ngadU barr-bbarrah barrU (See http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/archive/79/Harbour%20Remark%2004.pdf) I'm using U for barred-u. Notice that this system uses suppletion, for minimal and non-minimal terms, and the formant -bbarrah for "only one more." However, it appears to me that most of the Austronesian approaches to this sort of thing are actually minimal/plural systems. Example, Tolai (see http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/TokPisinPronouns.pdf) sg. dual trial plural 12 dor datal dat 1 iau amir amital avet 2 u amur amutal avat 3 ia dir dital diat In analyzing these, note ura 'two' and utul 'three', so dor is something like Ilocano ta + (u)r(a), datal is something like that plus (u)tal, and so on. It's interesting to see the Tok Pisin take on this, since Tolai is a big part of the local substrate of Tok Pisin. sg. dual trial plural 12 yumitupela yumitripela yumi (*yumipela) 1 mi mitupela mitripela mipela 2 yu yutupela yutripela yupela 3 em (em)tupela (em)tripela ol As I understand it, yumitupela is speaker + 1 x hearer, while yumi is speaker, plus 1 x hearer, plus unspecified others. Presumably the unspecified others can be either speakers or hearers or even persons out of the scene. Multiple speakers are presumably comes down to a question of solidarity. I do remember looking at examples of exclusive first person plurals once in a grammar of Nguna, a Polynesian Outlier language from the Austronesian. My recollection is that they weren't so much cases of people speaking in unison as narrative references reflecting solidarities, e.g., things like "They said (to someone), 'We (excl., i.e., not you) will ...'" The distinction between augment and pluralizer is moot if augmentation or plurality of 1 is indicated by suppletion, and the 12 form indicates either 1 x 1p + 1x 2p or that plus additional others. You end up with a system of the type that is traditionally characterized as singular vs. plural, with an inclusive vs. exclusive contrast in the first person plural region. But if the augmentation is indicated with a separate morpheme and the basic 12 form can only refer to one speaker + one hearer, then I think the minimal/augmented analysis looks better. It seems, though, that there may be muddy in between systems, though Dakota and Dhegiha are messy in different ways from Austronesian and particularly from Tok Pisin. It appears that inclusive might be the usual term for the basic 12 pronoun. I'd be OK with dual if we understand that it's not a number, but a person! From johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de Thu Dec 15 08:21:02 2005 From: johannes.helmbrecht at Uni-Erfurt.de (Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:02 +0100 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, I would like to add some clarifications with regard to the inclusive/ exclusive distinction in Hocank (Winnebago) from my experience. First of all, Lipkind is basically right with his analysis of forms. There is a 1A.DU.INCL hiN- meaning 'you and I'. If this form is pluralized with the suffix -wi, it is a 1A.PL.INCL. The 1SG ha- becomes a 1A.PL.EXCL with the plural marker -wi. Actually, there is no real dual form except the 'you and me' form hiN-. I would fully agree with John that we have a very similar pattern in Hocank to the ones summarized below in terms of minimal/augmented pronouns. There is not much to add to Johns presentation of the data form Austronesian and Australian languages. Perhaps, if I remeber correctly, there are also other morphosyntactic properties beside the structure of the paradigm which indicate that the 1+2 form is treated as singular in Rembarrnga, namely agreement, but I might be wrong. On the other hand, Hocank has the same distinction also in the undergoer series of pronominal affixes showing exactly the same pattern. The 1U.DU.INCL is waNanNg?- (certainly a historically recent addition to the pronominal partadigm) which can be pluralized with -wi resulting in a 1U.PL.INCL form. Interestingly, the 1U.SG form hiN- forms a 1U.PL.EXCL with -wi. (Note that 1U.SG hiN- and 1A.DU.INCL hiN- are homophonous, but they are distinct with regard to the morphological slot of the verb where they appear). So the system looks like the following : Actor 1SG ha- 1PL.EXCL ha- ... -wi 1DU hiN- 1DU.INCL hiN- ....- wi Undergoer 1SG hiN- 1PL.INCL hiN- ... -wi 1DU waNaNg?- 1PL.INCL waNaNg?- .... -wi The interesting thing about the plural marker -wi is that it may pluralize all speech act participants, no matter which syntactic/ semantic function (actor/ undergoer) they have. In addition, -wi (PL) can also pluralize both speech act participants in a transitve clause. If there is a first person acting on a second person, -wi may pluralize the actor, or the undergoer, or both of them. Disambiguation is a matter of the context. In addition, -wi alone may represent the 3PL.SUBJ, but these instances are rare in our corpus of texts. The default 3PL.SBJ marker is the suffix -ire which has only this function. Historically, Hocank -wi seems to me cognate to Lakota -pi, but there is nothing similar in Lakota like -ire. If speakers are asked for a verb form with a 3PL.SBJ, they give always forms with -ire. In transitive clauses, we have a combination of the actor and the undergoer pronouns. Reflexive configurations are avoided. Instead, the reflexive prefix ki- is used. Johns is right to point out that configurations such as I->us or you->you are forbidden. John is also right in assuming that INCL -> second person combinations are not possible. The same combinations with EXCL are, however, allowed. Let me add a final remark. It is noteworthy that there are Hocank speakers who totally gave up the inclusive/ exclusive distinction. They continue to use the different forms listed above but with no difference in meaning. They are no longer associated with the incl/excl distinction. Best, Johannes Koontz John E schrieb: >The morphology may be the least interesting thing about Winnebago's >inclusive and "pluralization" of Winnebago pronominals. We've seen how it >works in Dakotan and in several Dhegiha cases, but here's what I make of >Winnebago, depending mainly on Lipkind. > >1) The plural marker =i can co-occur with all four pronominal categories, >including, definitely the first person (h)a, cognate with Da wa, OP a, IO >(h)a, etc. > > 12 (h)iN- +/- =i you+I +/- others (we-incl. du. vs. pl.) > 1 (h)a- +/- =i I +/- others (I vs. we-excl. du. or pl.) > 2 ra- +/- =i you +/- others (you sg. vs. pl.) > 3 +/- =i s/he +/- others (3p sg. vs. pl.) > >(I'm ignoring the other third person plural marker!) > >2) Most Siouan languages eschew transitive forms in which the inclusive >agent or patient co-occurs with a first person patient or agent. Thus >there are no we>me or I>us forms. Winnebago also seems to eschew >combinations of the inclusive with a second person. Thus there are >(apparently) no we>you or you>us forms. Anyway, Lipkind didn't seem to >have any examples of them. > >I wish Henning were still on the list! > >=== > >The Winnebago pattern with "plural" is a complete version of the sort of >system Bob and Rory have been speaking about, in which the "inclusive" or >"dual" or "inclusive dual" form is one of the primitive "non-plural" >elements of the system, on a par with the first, second, and third persons >singular. > >In fact, this is what Dixon and other students of southwest Pacific >languages refer to as a minimal/augmented system. The minimal terms are >1, 2, 12, 3 or [+speaker -hearer], [-speaker +hearer], [+speaker +hearer] >and [-speaker -hearer], though I'm not sure that the feature analysis is >all that significant an improvement on the numbers. The augmented terms >indicate that "others" are added to the minimal reference and appear >morphologically as the minimal terms plus a plural enclitic at the end of >the verb. The plural enclitic is not really a pluralizer per se, but >rather an augment(er), indicating that others are added, not that >multiples of the minimal reference are present. > >Outside of Winnebago Mississippi Valley strays from this pattern (or fails >to reach it), by excluding the possibility of pairing the first person >with the augment and throwing that possibility into the scenarios >represented by the inclusive plus the augment. To the extent that the >inclusive or dual form is eliminated in actual use you get a situation in >which the unaugmented first person and the augmented (or unagumented) >inclusive come to pattern like singular and plural first persons. This >seems to be what has happened in Mandan, where first person singular wa- >opposes first person plural ruN- (nu-), which may be a reflex of *wuNk-. >As I recall there is no plural marker (or augment) in the first person in >Mandan. > >Biloxi may take a further step and generalize the inclusive marker to both >first person contexts, though the first person has so many allomorphs it >is hard to be sure they all come from *(w)uNk-. On the other hand Crow >and Hidatsa seem to lose the inclusive marker and just pluralize the first >person, except with the Crow stative, which seems to use the independent >first person plural pronoun with the third person verb. > >In the western Pacific the minimal/augmented pattern is fairly widespread. >It is found in Austronesian, e.g., in the Philippines and New Guinea and >in Australian. Apparently minimal/augmented systems are rare in the >Papuan language family or families. It appears that minimaal/augmented >systems have been noticed in Africa, too - not to mention midwestern North >America. > >Examples in the Philippines would be Ilocano or Tagalog: > > Ilocano Tagalog > > min aug min aug >12 ta tayo kita tayo >1 co mi ako kami >2 mo yo ikaw kayo >3 na da siya sila > >See http://email.eva.mpg.de/~cysouw/pdf/cysouwPHIL.pdf for a summary of >min/aug behavior in the Phlippines. I got the Tagalog data from >http://www.copewithcytokines.de/TAGALOG/cope.cgi?002841. > >Incidentally, my the Tagalog reference gave this example: mahal kita >(dear/expense + 12) = 'I love you'. An implicit reciprocal? > >It seems to me that in principle an augment system should indicate the >addition of 1, 2, N, etc., others to the sense of the minimal term, some >of these possibilities being arbitrarily noted as dual, trial, plural, >etc., in descriptions that ignore the pattern. On the other hand a plural >system should indicate the total number of individuals, 1 (singular), N > >1 (plural), 2 (dual), etc. > >Dixon's example of the Rembarrnga dative pronouns follows the augment >scheme quite well: > > min +1 +N > >12 yUkkU ngakorr-bbarrah ngakorrU >1 ngUnU yarr-bbarrah yarrU >2 kU nakor-bbarrah nakorrU >3m nawU barr-bbarrah barrU >3f ngadU barr-bbarrah barrU > >(See >http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/archive/79/Harbour%20Remark%2004.pdf) > >I'm using U for barred-u. > >Notice that this system uses suppletion, for minimal and non-minimal >terms, and the formant -bbarrah for "only one more." > >However, it appears to me that most of the Austronesian approaches to this >sort of thing are actually minimal/plural systems. > >Example, Tolai >(see http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/TokPisinPronouns.pdf) > > sg. dual trial plural >12 dor datal dat >1 iau amir amital avet >2 u amur amutal avat >3 ia dir dital diat > >In analyzing these, note ura 'two' and utul 'three', so dor is something >like Ilocano ta + (u)r(a), datal is something like that plus (u)tal, and >so on. > >It's interesting to see the Tok Pisin take on this, since Tolai is a big >part of the local substrate of Tok Pisin. > > sg. dual trial plural >12 yumitupela yumitripela yumi (*yumipela) >1 mi mitupela mitripela mipela >2 yu yutupela yutripela yupela >3 em (em)tupela (em)tripela ol > >As I understand it, yumitupela is speaker + 1 x hearer, while yumi is >speaker, plus 1 x hearer, plus unspecified others. Presumably the >unspecified others can be either speakers or hearers or even persons out >of the scene. Multiple speakers are presumably comes down to a question >of solidarity. > >I do remember looking at examples of exclusive first person plurals once >in a grammar of Nguna, a Polynesian Outlier language from the >Austronesian. My recollection is that they weren't so much cases of >people speaking in unison as narrative references reflecting solidarities, >e.g., things like "They said (to someone), 'We (excl., i.e., not you) will >...'" > >The distinction between augment and pluralizer is moot if augmentation or >plurality of 1 is indicated by suppletion, and the 12 form indicates >either 1 x 1p + 1x 2p or that plus additional others. You end up with a >system of the type that is traditionally characterized as singular vs. >plural, with an inclusive vs. exclusive contrast in the first person >plural region. But if the augmentation is indicated with a separate >morpheme and the basic 12 form can only refer to one speaker + one hearer, >then I think the minimal/augmented analysis looks better. It seems, >though, that there may be muddy in between systems, though Dakota and >Dhegiha are messy in different ways from Austronesian and particularly >from Tok Pisin. > >It appears that inclusive might be the usual term for the basic 12 >pronoun. I'd be OK with dual if we understand that it's not a number, but >a person! > > > > -- PD Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht Universit?t Erfurt - Philosophische Fakult?t Seminar f?r Sprachwissenschaft Postfach 90 02 21 D-99105 Erfurt, Deutschland Tel. 0361/ 737-4202 Fax 0361/ 737-4209 johannes.helmbrecht at uni-erfurt.de http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/index.htm From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Dec 15 13:36:18 2005 From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:36:18 +0100 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: > (J?n Ulrich:) I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k) (without -pi) is used. << I share this view. > One little correction: but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. In my experience, John kichi unyanpi means 'We went with John'. 'I and John went' is expressed either with John kichi ble - 'I went with John' or Miye kichi John ye - 'John went with me'. << The first interpretation would be the same as my wife's use in Transylvanian Saxon: "Mer sen med Hans gegongen" - We went with John (= I went with John). BTW, the conlang lojban (to some extent influenced by American Native tongues' grammar) has: mi 1st p. sg and pl (generic): I/we do 2nd p. sg and pl (generic): you/you mi'o [miho]: me and you mi'a: I and others (exclusive you) ma'a: me and you and others do'o: you and others (exclusive me) Alfred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Dec 15 16:44:04 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:44:04 -0700 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: <20051214230657.8850.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That's an interesting admission, Bruce, because I'm pretty sure we make that point in the Handbook sketch. I am happy to learn that I'm not the only one who can overlook minutiae in places I think I know well. I keep forgetting that Lakota also has dual demonstratives for third persons: hena'os or hena'uNs (speakers vary), etc., for 'both'. They aren't used very often. I wonder if there's an etymological connection between the -uN-s suffix and the first person forms. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, shokooh Ingham wrote: > David > Interesting that the dual /inclusive can only refer to > agent/subject and not to object patient as in 'he > sees you and me'. I think that emerges in Rigg's > Grammar, but not explictly stated. I've never seen it > mentioned explicitly before > > Bruce > --- ROOD DAVID S wrote: > > > > For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, > > moreover, even the > > "dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject > > roles; you have to > > have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's > > just the two of you. > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Dec 16 04:52:23 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:52:23 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: <43A1276E.7000704@uni-erfurt.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht wrote: > I would like to add some clarifications with regard to the inclusive/ > exclusive distinction in Hocank (Winnebago) from my experience. I'm extremely grateful for this Johannes! > First of all, Lipkind is basically right with his analysis of forms. > There is a 1A.DU.INCL hiN- meaning 'you and I'. If this form is > pluralized with the suffix -wi, it is a 1A.PL.INCL. I want to draw particular attention to your correction of the plural marker to =wi from my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). > The 1SG ha- becomes a 1A.PL.EXCL with the plural marker -wi. Actually, > there is no real dual form except the 'you and me' form hiN-. I'm thrilled to have this confirmed! I should state for the record, by the way, that I first learned of this pattern from a paper by Jean Charney. > I would fully agree with John that we have a very similar pattern in > Hocank to the ones summarized below in terms of minimal/augmented > pronouns. There is not much to add to Johns presentation of the data > form Austronesian and Australian languages. Probably quite a lot, of course! For one thing, I realized afterward that in terms of the examples I could discover this time around, only Siouan distinguishes the minimal and general augmented form - the "plural" - by adding a morpheme. In the Australian and Austronesian cases the minimal and general augmented (plural) forms are distinguished by suppletion. There the only cases with a separate augment marking are the duals and trials, etc. Another thing is that I have a nagging feeling that there are Austronesian examples that work like the Rembarrnga one, with the "dual augment" indicating three individuals, etc. However, I am not sure of this. > Perhaps, if I remeber correctly, there are also other morphosyntactic > properties beside the structure of the paradigm which indicate that the > 1+2 form is treated as singular in Rembarrnga, namely agreement, but I > might be wrong. You're probably right - I'm really not very well informed on the details of this pattern in Rembarrnga or elsewhere in Australian or Austronesian. There's no similar pattern in Siouan, except trivially, of course, because the pronominal marking is in the verb only. I did wonder if the fact that Hochank has a single independent pronoun ne for first and second person, per Lipkind, might be connected with this somehow. I suppose the same pronoun works for the inclusive, too? > On the other hand, As opposed to Dakotan? > Hocank has the same distinction also in the undergoer series of > pronominal affixes showing exactly the same pattern. The 1U.DU.INCL is > waNanNg?- (certainly a historically recent addition to the pronominal > partadigm) which can be pluralized with -wi resulting in a 1U.PL.INCL > form. Can you shed any light on the occurrence of -a- with waNaNga'-? Is it always there? When you call this a recent addition, are you refer to its "outside" position? > Interestingly, the 1U.SG form hiN- forms a 1U.PL.EXCL with -wi. I didn't even think to wonder about this! > (Note that 1U.SG hiN- and 1A.DU.INCL hiN- are homophonous, but they are > distinct with regard to the morphological slot of the verb where they > appear). This is pretty much in accord with matters in Dhegiha, e.g., Omaha-Ponca, where both are aN, but in different slots as well. The aN A12 acquires a trailing g before the a and u (*o) locatives, but not before the i locative: aN-g-a-... < aN + a- aN-g-u-... < aN + u- aN-dh-aN-... < i + aN I have my reasons for assuming i before aN in OP, apart from the lack of g. I don't think there's any need to assume this outside of Dhegiha, however. I don't think the trailing -g- occurs in Hochank or Ioway-Otoe, apart from the P12 waNaNg-a- for in the former. > So the system looks like the following : > > Actor > 1SG ha- > 1PL.EXCL ha- ... -wi > 1DU hiN- > 1DU.INCL hiN- ....- wi > > Undergoer > 1SG hiN- > 1PL.INCL hiN- ... -wi > 1DU waNaNg?- > 1PL.INCL waNaNg?- .... -wi > > The interesting thing about the plural marker -wi is that it may > pluralize all speech act participants, no matter which syntactic/ > semantic function (actor/ undergoer) they have. Would you call it a plural, stricting speaking, or an augment? > In addition, -wi (PL) can also pluralize both speech act participants > in a transitve clause. If there is a first person acting on a second > person, -wi may pluralize the actor, or the undergoer, or both of them. > Disambiguation is a matter of the context. In addition, -wi alone may > represent the 3PL.SUBJ, but these instances are rare in our corpus of > texts. The default 3PL.SBJ marker is the suffix -ire which has only this > function. The -ire plural has cognates with the third person in Ioway-Otoe, Mandan, and Tutelo, so this is apparently a retention from Proto-Siouan. IO also alternates it with =wi in the third person. ... > In transitive clauses, we have a combination of the actor and the > undergoer pronouns. Reflexive configurations are avoided. Instead, the > reflexive prefix ki- is used. Johns is right to point out that > configurations such as I->us or you->you are forbidden. John is also > right in assuming that INCL -> second person combinations are not > possible. The same combinations with EXCL are, however, allowed. I'm particularly glad to have this confirmed, as I hadn't seen it suggested anywhere else, though it is implicit in Lipkind. > Let me add a final remark. It is noteworthy that there are Hocank > speakers who totally gave up the inclusive/ exclusive distinction. They > continue to use the different forms listed above but with no difference > in meaning. They are no longer associated with the incl/excl distinction. I'm not surprised, though I couldn't have imagined the details of the direction taken. Carolyn Quintero has already described the way in which the Osage inclusive form becomes a straight dual, and the Omaha-Ponca texts seem to have the simple inclusive form only rarely, while other Siouan languages have lost it entirely, and sometimes the inclusive form as well. Regina Pustet has reported the simple inclusive form as declining in Lakhota. Both Dakotan and Dhegiha diverge from the pattern in Hochank, and I suspect that Hochank represents the original pattern here. I don't think that the minimal/augmented pattern is actually unstable, or it wouldn't be so widespread in the huge, widely distributed Austronesian family, but it might be difficult to maintain if other languages in an integrated area lack it, or in the face of a superstratum like English that lacks it. One postscript - in tracking down the Austronesian data I needed I was reminded that English once had a dual. That is, Indo-European has widespread traces, and two that remain current in English as late as Old English are the duals of the SAP pronouns, which in the nominative in OE were: s d p 1 ic wit we 2 dhu git ye Dh, of course, was written with edh or thorn, and g in git is y and c in ic is c^. Dual pronouns governed plural verbs. No trace of an inclusive, per se, in Indo-European generally, as far as I am aware, though I wonder if -otros 'others' < Latin alteres in Spanish nostotros and vosotros might be originally an exclusive marker (inverted in the second person form). Does anyone know? How about Engish we-all/we-uns? I'm not from the right dialect area to understand the implications of those. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 08:16:03 2005 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:16:03 -0800 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals Message-ID: An inclusive/exclusive distinction in the first person plural has arisen in some modern Indo-Aryan languages. In Gujarati, for example, there are 1pl exclusive /ame/ and 1pl inclusive /a:pne/. I don't know many details, but this is apparently an areal thing, such that some southwestern languages of the north Indian area have it but not others. So another one is Marathi, but not Hindi. > No trace of an inclusive, per se, in Indo-European generally, as far as I > am aware, though I wonder if -otros 'others' < Latin alteres in Spanish > nostotros and vosotros might be originally an exclusive marker (inverted > in the second person form). Does anyone know? From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 17 19:04:56 2005 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:04:56 +0000 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is what I found strange about the use of 'dual' here to Bruce > To me 'dual' refers to nominal or pronominal > category in which both members of the duality have > to occupy the same argument category, i.e., "I see > you" wouldn't qualify as a dual in the Indo-European > (and I suspect Americanist) tradition. Both > participants would have to share subjecthood or > objecthood, etc. As I recall Dixon's person > categories are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and inclusive. > > Bob > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Dec 19 17:05:52 2005 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:05:52 -0600 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to thank both John Koontz and Dr. Johannes Helmbrecht for their excellent recent postings. I think they have opened up a very exciting perspective on the whole topic, and it certainly helps me to understand the motivation for the use of the terms "inclusive", "exclusive", "dual", "12", etc. I'm also happy to learn that a near-perfect example of a minimal/augmented system is preserved in a language as close to home as Winnebago! The idea of an ancestral language with four persons-- +speaker/+listener; +speaker/-listener; -speaker/+listener; -speaker/-listener-- with an augment to indicate additional others, seems to be a very good explanation for the inflectional pattern we see in Siouan. It appears from some of the examples given that languages that use the minimal/augmented system often have different augments depending on whether the number of additional others is one, (two), or many. Hocank (Winnebago) apparently does not make this distinction semantically, but it does have two different augments, =wi (< MVS *pi), and =ire. John points out that =ire has cognates in IO, Mandan, and Tutelo, and that both augments occur in the third person in both IO and Hocank: > The -ire plural has cognates with the third person in > Ioway-Otoe, Mandan, and Tutelo, so this is apparently > a retention from Proto-Siouan. IO also alternates it > with =wi in the third person. I would suggest that in the proto-language, one of these augments was a +one augment, and the other a +plural augment. We might be able to figure out which is which from a careful review of the semantic context for the alternations in Hocank and IO. One quibble: > I want to draw particular attention to your > correction of the plural marker to =wi from > my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, > where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). At one time, OP =i was regarded as a simple allomorph of =bi. I think John and I are in agreement now that these are semantically different morphemes in 19th century OP. I am skeptical of the view that they are historically cognate, though there may be evidence for this in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw of which I am not yet aware. Unless there is a very strong argument for this, I think that we should consider the alternative possibility that OP =i is related to Hocank =ire, not to MVS *=pi (> OP =bi, H =wi). Rory From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Mon Dec 19 21:56:21 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:56:21 -1100 Subject: LSA Message-ID: Hi All, I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going to go? Hope to see you there. John John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago From rankin at ku.edu Mon Dec 19 22:13:01 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:13:01 -0600 Subject: LSA Message-ID: I'm planning to be there. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of jpboyle at uchicago.edu Sent: Mon 12/19/2005 3:56 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: LSA Hi All, I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going to go? Hope to see you there. John John P. Boyle Department of Linguistics University of Chicago From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Mon Dec 19 22:20:36 2005 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:20:36 -0700 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: <9841207b.6d4d3753.81b1800@m4500-01.uchicago.edu> Message-ID: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 00:01:52 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:01:52 -0700 Subject: *pi (Re: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented) Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > One quibble: > > I want to draw particular attention to your > > correction of the plural marker to =wi from > > my =i. That was contamination from Omaha-Ponca, > > where it is =i (~ =bi ~ =b etc.). > > At one time, OP =i was regarded as a simple allomorph of =bi. I think John > and I are in agreement now that these are semantically different morphemes > in 19th century OP. Yes. > I am skeptical of the view that they are historically cognate, though > there may be evidence for this in Osage, Kaw or Quapaw of which I am not > yet aware. Unless there is a very strong argument for this, I think > that we should consider the alternative possibility that OP =i is > related to Hocank =ire, not to MVS *=pi (> OP =bi, H =wi). Although I agree that the distribution of =i and =bi doesn't work quite as I originally thought, I remain convinced that they derive from the same source. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Mon Dec 19 23:58:41 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:58:41 -0700 Subject: Winnebago Inclusive/Exclusive and Minimal/Augmented Pronominals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > It appears from some of the examples given that languages that use the > minimal/augmented system often have different augments depending on whether > the number of additional others is one, (two), or many. Multiple non-minimal forms are pretty common in Australian and Austronesian, though whole branches lack them and have only simple minimal/augmented pairs or singular/plural ones with inclusive/exclusive first person plurals. The multiple non-minimal forms also occur in Tok Pisin, which is closely associated with Austronesian languages that have multiple non-minimal forms. But, except for Tok Pisin, all of these Western Pacific examples seem always to involve a suppletive opposition between a minimal set and an augmented set of pronouns, and the duals, trials, etc., involve close compounding of mainly the augmented set with an additional element. In Rembarrnga - the only Australian example I looked at - this additional element works like a unit augment, and compounded with the augmented inclusive form it forms a trial, not a dual. There is no inclusive dual, unless you count the minimal inclusive form "you & me only" as a dual. In Austronesian (and Tok Pisin), the compounded element forming duals and trials is always a numeral, and all the examples of dual and trial forms I was able to lay my hands on followed a pattern of pluralization rather than augmentation. In this approach, the minimal inclusive form for "you & me only" is always marked as a dual by compounding with 'two', and the unmarked augmented form is the "you & me & others" form. The augmented inclusive form may combine with 'three' to form a trial form. We might call this pattern minimal/augmented/numerated. The numeration is slightly out of alignment with the autmentation. Tok Pisin has something very like this minimal/augmented/numerated pattern, except there is no consistent suppletion in forming augmented forms. The minimal inclusive yumi is marked dual with tupela as in Austronesian cases. The trial form yumitripela is 'you, me, and someone else' in which yumi plays the role of the augmented form. The unmarked form yumi plays the role of the unmarked augmented form 'you, me, and an unspecified number of others', maybe 'you, me, and more than one other' - it wasn't clear. The first, second, and third persons behave simply, with tupela and tripela adding one and two additional others. These forms take pela alone to form the general augmented form, except in the third person, where the suppletive form ol is found. So here the minimal and augmented series are: min aug 12 yumi(tupela) yumi (no yumipela asserted) 1 mi mipela 2 yu yupela 3 em ol (no empela?) The Austronesian and Tok Pisin compounds with numerals are often rather irregularly reduced. (I didn't include the Tok Pisin examples of this.) > Hocank (Winnebago) apparently does not make this distinction > semantically, but it does have two different augments, =wi (< MVS *pi), > and =ire. John points out that =ire has cognates in IO, Mandan, and > Tutelo, and that both augments occur in the third person in both IO and > Hocank: ... [So,] I would suggest that in the proto-language, one of > these augments was a +one augment, and the other a +plural augment. The Siouan pattern is somewhat different from the Pacific one. It has only a minimal set of pronouns, and forms the augmemted set by adding a "plural" or "augment" marker - not to the pronoun per se, but to the verb. Logically this might be something like "some" or "many" or "more," though I tend to think not. If the Siouan augments distinguished +1, +2 and +many, etc., they might be expected to correspond to numerals, roughly, even though in the Western Pacific numerals occur with plural marking rather than with augment marking. On that basis, perhaps *pi and its various correspondents can be compared to *wiN(r)- 'one', though details of the correspondences are irregular and unusual. Admittedly the *pi plural marker set is pretty irregular already, and irregular reductions in enclitic positions are plausible, cf. the patterns with numerals in Austronesian. But the *h(i)re plural is restricted to the third person, and I don't see any evidence of multiple numbers in extant Siouan augment or plural patterns, even though there are actually quite a number of different plural markers attested across Siouan. For myself I'm inclined to see *=pi as some kind of focus marker, from the various "non pluralizing" uses it encounters. I've suggested that on the list. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 04:41:33 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:41:33 -0700 Subject: *kr (RE: Tomahittan?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This was set aside to complete in Novemember and I am just now returning to it! On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Rory M Larson wrote: > I'm wondering what OP gdh- looks like in other Siouan languages, especially > Proto-Siouan and Southeastern? PCH *kVr- (V conditioned, but not the same) Cr kVr- Hi kVr- PMa *kr Ma kVr / __V (Vs identical) PMV *kr PDa *kR Sa hd Te gl [gl] St hn PDh *kr OP gdh [g] Os l < dl ~ gl Ks l Qu kd IO kr Wi kVr/ __V (Vs identical) Tu kVr (grV) PBO Bi kVd, kd Of kVd, kt > I think I understand that words like gdhe, gdhaN, gdhiN, gdhi, etc, > reflect an original *kire', *kiraN', *kiriN', *kiri', with the initial > *ki- being a possessive or reflexive 'action with respect to self' > element. Is this correct? This is generally assumed. However, some observations: 1) *ki is strictly speaking assumed only in forms where *k- is a dative or suus prefix in alternation with *ki- in other paradigms. 2) But it is deduced for the vertitive *k-, by analogy with the foregoing cases. 3) It's reasonably clear that many of the essentially automatic and predictable intrusive Vs in *CR clusters can be seen as secondary in synchronic or contemporary terms in languages like Winnebago or Mandan or Crow and Hidatsa, but it may be significant that something like this epenthesis is found so widely. And it is dangerous to assume that all apparently predictable vowels are actually epenthetic. In some cases they may be organic, based on comparisons with languages rthat lack epenthesis. 4) In general Siouan contains numerous traces of a reduction of earlier **(C)VCV forms to *CCV, etc. In many cases the reduced elements seem to be grammatical affixes of one kind or another: personal inflection, verb derivation markers, noun classifiers, etc. In a sense, any heavy element in initial position - clusters, aspirates, pre-aspirates, ejectives, etc., prosthetic vowels in some languages, is likely to involve some sort of reduction or re-allignment of segments. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Tue Dec 20 04:55:02 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:55:02 -0700 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis In-Reply-To: <004801c6011e$ab781c60$794095ce@JIMM> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 goodtracks at peoplepc.com wrote: > The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: > "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? John (Boyle)'s or Randy's assessments on this would be more useful, I suspect, but since John hasn't responded, I gave it a look. I think the surprising -dw- cluster is to be explained as -dua-, but the initial sequence waruahi..., or ma(a)duahi... as I think it would be in G.H. Matthews, don't seem to lead to anything. Perhaps it GHM's ma a du h.e pi 'a shallow spot' or ma a du h.a ku pi 'a crease or groove in anything' are relevant. h. or under-dotted h, is x. From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Tue Dec 20 13:37:10 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:37:10 -1100 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis Message-ID: Hi All, Sorry I didn't respond to the list I didn't know how much interest there would be in a Hidatsa word. This is basically my response to Jimm: I to was troubled by the [dw] cluster as Hidatsa doesn't allow this. I think what the word really was, was: maruwahiri?isha maruwa-hiri-?-isha something-do-this.way Meaning "something that is (meant) to be done". After talking with Jimm, I found out the context of this word. It was told to him by Finigan Baker, who was a very fluent speaker. Given the context of the conversation, I think this gloss is correct. I have asked several people I work with in North Dakota and they agree with this translation. So, there is my take on it. Sorry I didn't respond to the list as a whole. John Boyle > >On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 goodtracks at peoplepc.com wrote: >> The following Hidatsa word __wadwahiri?isha__ was told to me to mean: >> "To Be Predestined". What are the elements in this word composition? > >John (Boyle)'s or Randy's assessments on this would be more useful, I >suspect, but since John hasn't responded, I gave it a look. I think the >surprising -dw- cluster is to be explained as -dua-, but the initial >sequence waruahi..., or ma(a)duahi... as I think it would be in G.H. >Matthews, don't seem to lead to anything. Perhaps it GHM's ma a du h.e pi >'a shallow spot' or ma a du h.a ku pi 'a crease or groove in anything' are >relevant. h. or under-dotted h, is x. > From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Dec 20 15:10:40 2005 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:10:40 -0600 Subject: LSA Message-ID: See y'all there! Catherine >>> rood at spot.Colorado.EDU 12/19/2005 4:20 PM >>> I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 15:41:13 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:41:13 -0800 Subject: LSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll give an LSA talk not on Lakota but on the exotic language German. I don't know yet if I will get stuck at LSA or will hang around SSILA more, but I'll watch out for you guys. See ya Regina Catherine Rudin wrote: See y'all there! Catherine >>> rood at spot.Colorado.EDU 12/19/2005 4:20 PM >>> I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ 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 pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 15:46:41 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:46:41 -0800 Subject: Leipzig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David The deadline is approaching, and I want to submit the paper before I forget about it in the increasing Christmas chaos. Can we leave it as it is? Best wishes + Happy Holidays Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ 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 pustetrm at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:17:53 2005 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:17:53 -0800 Subject: uh oh In-Reply-To: <20051220154641.97597.qmail@web54602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry folks -- Of course this last message I sent to Siouanlist was for David Rood only. Apologies and Happy Holidays Regina REGINA PUSTET wrote: Hi David The deadline is approaching, and I want to submit the paper before I forget about it in the increasing Christmas chaos. Can we leave it as it is? Best wishes + Happy Holidays Regina ROOD DAVID S wrote: I'll be there, but probably more at SSILA than LSA. I'm getting in Thursday in the middle of the afternoon. I'll look for you. Bob Rankin and I are rooming together, so he'll be there, too, but I don't know when. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Hi All, > > I was just wondering who I should look for at the LSA this year? Is anyone going > to go? > > Hope to see you there. > > John > > John P. Boyle > Department of Linguistics > University of Chicago > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ 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 goodtracks at peoplepc.com Wed Dec 21 03:18:01 2005 From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com (goodtracks at peoplepc.com) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:18:01 -0600 Subject: Fw: BLESSED HOLIDAYS TO ALL FRIENDS & RELATIVES Message-ID: Clear Day From: goodtracks at peoplepc.com Subject: Fw: BLESSED HOLIDAYS TO ALL FRIENDS & RELATIVES Kig??e G?rokihina B??i Ch?gerokan Happy Holidays and Blessed New Year & May you have three spiritual gifts of the Season M?yanPi Spirit of Christmas PEACE Wak?da Gladness of Cristmas HOPE WaP?kikihi Heart of Christmas GOOD-WILL Jimm and son Paco, Grandchildren,Ahna & Sage Markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Clear Day Bkgrd.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ahartley at d.umn.edu Wed Dec 21 18:03:47 2005 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:03:47 -0600 Subject: Bob Rankin's chapter Message-ID: Bob Rankin's chapter The Comparative Method in Joseph & Janda Handbook of Historical Linguistics is avaiable at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/ Sample_chapter/0631195718/Joseph_001.pdf A lot of Siouan material: imagine that! Merry Cristmas and Happy New Year to all. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Dec 21 20:16:05 2005 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:16:05 -0700 Subject: Hidatsa Word Analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote: > Sorry I didn't respond to the list I didn't know how much interest there > would be in a Hidatsa word. Are you kidding? Especially in this case where several useful word formation patterns were exhibited! Also, it helps balance out the Omaha-Ponca. Though Omaha-Ponca continues to fascinate me, and clearly contains within it reflections of all things Siouan and worthy, I sometimes worry that there may be people on the list who feel they might do something desperate if they see another edh. No, as it stands the diet on the list is quite Crow-Hidatsa deficient, not to mention Mandan, Winnebago, Ioway-Otoe, and points southeasterly. Very little vitamins syntax or phonology either. Lots of spicy etymology, not much roughage. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 21 22:58:58 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:58 -0600 Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Tutelo has two first person non-singular pronominal prefixes in a hapax legomenon 'to be a man/Indian'. These are mi- and nu-. It seems then that there are two distinct 1st dual or plural markers reconstructible in Siouan, ?uN-, with messy (but definite) cognates throughout Ohio and Mississippi Valley Siouan and ruN-, found only in Mandan and Tutelo. There is otherwise no real clue what the semantic distinction between them was. Both prefixes merely exist with a first person dual and/or plural meaning. be a man/Indian (Oliverio 1996:290 citing Hale 1889) 1sg wa-mi-hta:kai 2sg wa-yi -hta:kai 3sg wa- -hta:kai 1pl mi-wa-mi-hta:kai 1pl? mi:-wa-nu-hta:kan With 'be a man/Indian', the 1pl or inclusive forms are unique in Tutelo. Hale recorded two distinct forms labeled 1pl. Both show reflexes of Proto-Siouan mi-, /wiN-/, probably '1st person dual' (with cognates in Winnebago hiN- '1 du agent'). One duplicates -mi- inserted within the stem; the other inserts -nu-, not otherwise found in the scant Tutelo data. Hale apparently did not probe the semantic distinction between them. (The -n suffix on the 1pl' form may be modal?) Mandan alone within Siouan marks 1du/pl exclusively with the prefix ruN-, phonetically [nu-]. Note that Tutelo -nu- cannot be derived from the grammaticalized word for 'man', wa:Nk- bacause in Tutelo that incorporated pronominal is already represented in the prefix maNk- 'we-active' which does not reduce to uNk- in that language. Tutelo 'we-patient' is mae-, cognate with Crow balee. There is also a match for Mandan and Tutelo *ruN- among the Catawba object prefixes, where noN- ~ do- also marks 1st pl. There is also a match among Yuchi pronominals, where noN- marks 1st person plural exclusive. So I am convinced that we have at least two 1st (du/pl) pronominals reconstructible, *?uN- (often contaminated with *wa:Nk or *wu:Nk- 'man'), and *ruN-, which was probably exclusive at one time. Tutelo and Winnebago suggest that *wiN- may have been a specifically dual prefix, whereas *?uN- and *ruN- were inclusive and exclusive. Bob From BARudes at aol.com Thu Dec 22 00:34:34 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:34:34 EST Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Just as a clarification, the Catawba first person plural forms Bob is referring to are nu ~ du:- (not noN- ~ do-). More specifically, nu is an object proclitic on verbs (e.g. nu k?:nire: 'he/she sees us' [k?:nire: 'he/she sees it'); du:- is a pronominal stem used to form first person plural independent pronouns (e.g. d?:ta? 'we (subject)', d?:ka? 'us (object)', du: 'we (emphatic)'. The inflectional markers for first person plural subjects on verbs and possession on nouns are unrelated to nu: ~du:-: ha- with verbs that take prefixes and with inalienably possessed nouns and -?a:- with verbs that take suffixes and with alienably possessed nouns. Internal reconstruction within Catawba would suggest that nu and du:- come from earlier nu and nu:-. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:10:05 2005 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:10:05 -0800 Subject: Happy Holidays Message-ID: Hi all, N?pi Nithani Phi! (day + big + good) Okay, I'm not sure if this is exactly how "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas" was said in Biloxi, but N?pi Nithani ("day big") was apparently "Merry Christmas" according to Dorsey, so I figured "day big good" was a good approximation. New Year was apparently N?pi Nithani Towe ("day big French") or "Frenchman's Sunday" per Dorsey's translation. (Towe is also the verb "to exchange or trade.") Happy Holidays! Dave --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Dec 22 21:01:52 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:01:52 -0600 Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Thanks for the additional info. Isn't it the case though that there is perhaps no phonological distinction between [o] and [u]? And certainly not between [oN] and [uN]. Several field workers did record [do] and [noN]. The reason I ask is because Frank Siebert showed himself to be a questionable phonetician in his 1941 Quapaw notes from Oklahoma, and I have to assume he may have had problems when he got away from Algonquian distinctions. Of course Speck wasn't up even to Siebert's level unfortunately. McDavid was a professional phonetician though, although I can't say anything about his informants. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of BARudes at aol.com Sent: Wed 12/21/2005 6:34 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Just as a clarification, the Catawba first person plural forms Bob is referring to are nu ~ du:- (not noN- ~ do-). More specifically, nu is an object proclitic on verbs (e.g. nu k?:nire: 'he/she sees us' [k?:nire: 'he/she sees it'); du:- is a pronominal stem used to form first person plural independent pronouns (e.g. d?:ta? 'we (subject)', d?:ka? 'us (object)', du: 'we (emphatic)'. The inflectional markers for first person plural subjects on verbs and possession on nouns are unrelated to nu: ~du:-: ha- with verbs that take prefixes and with inalienably possessed nouns and -?a:- with verbs that take suffixes and with alienably possessed nouns. Internal reconstruction within Catawba would suggest that nu and du:- come from earlier nu and nu:-. Blair From BARudes at aol.com Thu Dec 22 22:02:55 2005 From: BARudes at aol.com (BARudes at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:02:55 EST Subject: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Message-ID: Everyone - i.e. Gatschet, Speck, Michelson, Swadesh, Swanton, McDavid, Siebert - made serious transcription errors in recording Catawba vowels and citing forms from any source without carefull philological analysis and comparison with other sources can be misleading. Speck, McDavid, and Siebert all worked with with Sally Gordon; she was McDavid's sole consultant and Speck's and Siebert's primary consultant. Catawba has a total of twelve vowel phonemes, which are grouped in three sets: (1) short oral - /i e a u/, (2) long oral - /i: e: a: u:/, and (3) nasal (which are non-distinctively long) - /iN eN aN uN/. The short oral vowel /u/ appears as phonetic [u] when stressed and as a centralized rounded vowel when unstressed. The long oral vowel /u:/ appears as [o:] when stressed and as [u] when unstressed. So there is a phonetic contrast between [u] (phonemic /u/) and [o:] (phonemic /u:). The phoneme /uN/ can appear as phonetic [oN], but so can phoneme /aN/. And many of the research also wrote phonetic [cN] (nasal open-o, the result of a phonetic contraction) as [oN]. So, the first person plural morphemes nu an du: could appear phonetically as [nu] and [do:], but neither contains a nasal vowel. Blair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Dec 23 04:35:30 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:35:30 -0600 Subject: Catawba vowels. Message-ID: Blair, Thanks for that. Lack of a u/o contrast explains the variability nicely. The Catawba evidence is very important as it shows that the Mandan (and now Tutelo) forms aren't just a fluke or descended from *?uN-. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of BARudes at aol.com Sent: Thu 12/22/2005 4:02 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms. Everyone - i.e. Gatschet, Speck, Michelson, Swadesh, Swanton, McDavid, Siebert - made serious transcription errors in recording Catawba vowels and citing forms from any source without carefull philological analysis and comparison with other sources can be misleading. Speck, McDavid, and Siebert all worked with with Sally Gordon; she was McDavid's sole consultant and Speck's and Siebert's primary consultant. Catawba has a total of twelve vowel phonemes, which are grouped in three sets: (1) short oral - /i e a u/, (2) long oral - /i: e: a: u:/, and (3) nasal (which are non-distinctively long) - /iN eN aN uN/. The short oral vowel /u/ appears as phonetic [u] when stressed and as a centralized rounded vowel when unstressed. The long oral vowel /u:/ appears as [o:] when stressed and as [u] when unstressed. So there is a phonetic contrast between [u] (phonemic /u/) and [o:] (phonemic /u:). The phoneme /uN/ can appear as phonetic [oN], but so can phoneme /aN/. And many of the research also wrote phonetic [cN] (nasal open-o, the result of a phonetic contraction) as [oN]. So, the first person plural morphemes nu an du: could appear phonetically as [nu] and [do:], but neither contains a nasal vowel. Blair From rankin at ku.edu Wed Dec 28 16:10:26 2005 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:10:26 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive Message-ID: I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 17:18:57 2005 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:18:57 -0800 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would also like a copy. Thanks, Bob, Carolyn Q. _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:10 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: inclusive/exclusive I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for about twelve years that I have been using the terms e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a third party'. Possibly there is some other rational for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which case it would not really be a dual. We live and learn Bruce ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ________________________________ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping _____ Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping From mary.marino at usask.ca Thu Dec 29 18:24:30 2005 From: mary.marino at usask.ca (Marino) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:24:30 -0600 Subject: inclusive/exclusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Bob I'd like a copy, too. Thanks. Mary At 10:10 AM 12/28/2005, you wrote: >I'm incorporating my new data from Tutelo in the paper and will send my >draft as soon as I finish the minor revision. Bob > >________________________________ > >From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman >Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 12:47 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > I have a paper on that I can send folks. > > >Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks! > >Dave > >"Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman > Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive > > > > Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > > > Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more > research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language? > > Dave > > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > Although I think Siouan languages once had a real > inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t he > Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have > dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So > uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you > and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a > 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a > generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not > necessarily exclude the p erson addressed. > > The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in > other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it > in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. > Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as > an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is > intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. > > I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the > disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t here > distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply > outside the system? > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham > Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: inclusive/exclusive > > > > I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for > about twelve years that I have been using the terms > e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought > that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person > was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that > the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other > way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is > exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude > 2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a > third party'. Possibly there is some other rational > for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know > what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where > nimiic inaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others > excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat) > means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also > note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in > Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether > it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which > case it would not really be a dual. > We live and learn > Bruce > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide > with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Yahoo! Shopping > Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping > > > >________________________________ > >Yahoo! Shopping >Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping > > From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Dec 30 20:48:47 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:48:47 -1100 Subject: LSA? Message-ID: Hey Linda, I was wondering how things are down at IU and if you were planning on coming to the LSA this year? Hope all is well and that you had a good holiday. All the best, John From jpboyle at uchicago.edu Fri Dec 30 20:55:16 2005 From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:55:16 -1100 Subject: LSA? Message-ID: I've really got to stop sending things out to the entire list!! Sorry. John