Tutelo 1st dual/plural forms.

[Rankin, Robert L]

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