Biloxi aNksi "bow"

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> > a compound of a Siouan noun and an Algonquian final seems a bit unusual.
>
> But we do have common Dhegiha *mite 'bow' borrowed from Algonquian being
> remodeled using Dhegiha *ma 'arrow' and coming out modern maNte in some
> of the languages.  Mita is Algonquian while ma- is Siouan.

Most of the probable loans from Algonquian do seem to be somewhat
remodelled.  However, I'm not sure we can be sure that reflexes of PA
*me?tekw-a were always borrowed with miNte and then reformulated by
analogy with *maN 'arrow'.

I realize that David Costa recommend a longer etymon for bow, but the
Siouan forms don't seem to presuppose anything more than *me?tekwa, which
I think I got from Aubin's PA Dictionary.

What we have, if I recall is:

Da ita(zipa) < ita + zipa, with ita assumed to be from *mi(N)ta,
reanalyzed as a first person possessive of a stem ita.

OP maN(aN)'de

Ks miN(iN)j^e  (?)

Os miN(iN)ce   (?)

Qu

IO maN(aN)hdu < *maNaNktu, regular metathesis from *maNaNtku

Wi maNaNc^gu'

I think it's the Dakota and Ks-Os forms that have iN, while OP, IO, and Wi
have aN.  Given aN in IO and Wi, perhaps aN is OP is original.  And how
about the aN ~ iN alternations in 'grizzly' and, I think, some other
terms?

Of course, it's likely that the term was borrowed into PDh, perhaps
already a dialect continuum at the time time, though I doubt Os and Ks
were distinct.  But it seems difficult to be sure that the form was
borrowed as *miNiNte and reformulated.  It might as easily have been
borrowed as *maNaNte and reformulated.  Or maybe a foreign sounding
*m<ae>Nte was borrowed and reformulated variously.

The Dakota form could easily have been borrowed separately.