From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Feb 10 22:44:28 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:44:28 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.164428.0600.>

I'm sitting in on an ethnobotany course this semester, and one of the things that was mentioned was that the Masai and other African tribes who depend almost exclusively on meat and meat products for food mix Acacia bark in with their stew and it has a cholesterol-lowering medicinal effect.  This reminded me of something Mrs. Rowe told me about Kaw cooking.  She said that THEY USED TO PUT THE INNER BARK OF THE ELM TREE IN THEIR COOKING GREASE.  I always figured that they just liked the flavor it imparted, but I'm finding out that it probably had specific and positive medicinal effects.  
 
Have any of the rest of you heard of this habit among other Siouan-speaking peoples?  I suspect Mrs. Rowe was referring to /hiNje $cu$ce/ the "slippery elm", because its inner bark is sort of gooey.  It would also serve as a thickener for meat broth.
 
Bob


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sat Feb 11 00:02:31 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:02:31 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.180231.0600.>

Bob,

I have seen the same thing among Ponca people, but it was many years ago. I
can't recall the name of the inner bark off hand. As I recall, that had a
great many uses (including this horrid tasting tea that could whip any cold
known to man). There was also inner bark from dogwood tree (also having
medicinal qualities) and a few others. If they were boiling big tubs of meat
they would often throw long twists of that bark in there.

Grandma use to cook water lilly roots when she could get them. She claimed
that they had medicinal qualities, but I never ran that one down. They were
a big favorite, but hard to get (the northern variety being preferred).

There were all kinds of other things that old Ponca folks used to call "real
Indian food", but it might be too long to go into here. I have a list of
Ponca names for some of them if that would help you. Unfortunately, not many
cook that way anymore.

Also, I was somewhat amazed to find how many of the names Gilmore had
collected (Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River Region)
were/are still retained.

Tom Leonard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.


I'm sitting in on an ethnobotany course this semester, and one of the things
that was mentioned was that the Masai and other African tribes who depend
almost exclusively on meat and meat products for food mix Acacia bark in
with their stew and it has a cholesterol-lowering medicinal effect.  This
reminded me of something Mrs. Rowe told me about Kaw cooking.  She said that
THEY USED TO PUT THE INNER BARK OF THE ELM TREE IN THEIR COOKING GREASE.  I
always figured that they just liked the flavor it imparted, but I'm finding
out that it probably had specific and positive medicinal effects.

Have any of the rest of you heard of this habit among other Siouan-speaking
peoples?  I suspect Mrs. Rowe was referring to /hiNje $cu$ce/ the "slippery
elm", because its inner bark is sort of gooey.  It would also serve as a
thickener for meat broth.

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Feb 11 18:51:38 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:51:38 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.125138.0600.>

> I have seen the same thing among Ponca people, but it was many years ago. I can't recall the name of the inner bark off hand. As I recall, that had a great many uses (including this horrid tasting tea that could whip any cold known to man). 
 
Gilmore (1919) mentions it could be used as a laxative too, like Castor Oil or mineral oil can be today.  But he also says it was used by the Omahas in cooking/boiling meat.  He says they just liked the taste, but it's really interesting that the Dhegiha speakers (and maybe others) and African groups halfway around the world independently discovered that there were health advantages to using the mucosa from inner bark to counter the massive amounts of cholesterol that primarily hunting or cattle-raising peoples ingested.  Nobody knew what "cholesterol" was back then, but they certainly  figured out that you would be healthier if you used that bark with the meat grease/broth.  
 
I had a note from Ryan Red Corn who says the Osages used slippery elm bark the same way.  So we've established that the Omahas, Poncas, Kaws and Osages all used the slippery elm bark in this way.  (The Omaha term given by Gilmore is 'e-zhoN zhide gthigthide [slippery red elm] ).
 
> There was also inner bark from dogwood tree (also having medicinal qualities) and a few others. If they were boiling big tubs of meat they would often throw long twists of that bark in there.

> Grandma use to cook water lilly roots when she could get them. She claimed that they had medicinal qualities, but I never ran that one down. They were a big favorite, but hard to get (the northern variety being preferred).

The Kaws prepared those too, but Mrs. Rowe's granddaughter says she doesn't care for the taste and texture nowadays.  :-)

> There were all kinds of other things that old Ponca folks used to call "real Indian food", but it might be too long to go into here. I have a list of Ponca names for some of them if that would help you. Unfortunately, not many cook that way anymore.
 
I'd really appreciate your sharing the list.  It is fascinating the number of these traditional plant uses had some very special qualities.  The gooey inner bark of the elm, acacia and mimosa trees contain chemicals the botanists call "saponins" that have the cholesterol-reducing property.

> Also, I was somewhat amazed to find how many of the names Gilmore had collected (Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River Region) were/are still retained.

Tom Leonard


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sat Feb 11 20:48:05 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:48:05 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.144805.0600.>

>Gilmore (1919) mentions it could be used as a laxative too, like Castor Oil
or mineral oil can be today.  >The Omaha term given by Gilmore is 'e-zhoN
zhide gthigthide [slippery red elm] ).

"'e-zhoN zhide gthigthide" is interesting. "zhoN" is certainly "wood" and
"zhi'de" is certainly "red". "Slippery", I believe, is "shna" or "shna ha"
in Ponca.

"gthigthide" sort of sounded like "iN'gthe" to me. Interestingly, I called
my mom's younger sister, who did a lot of cooking for large feasts when she
was younger (and whom I've seen use the bark twists). I took notes. I asked
her what "gthigthide" meant. The very first thing she said was "are you
trying to say 'iN'gthe'? - hey, behave yourself!!" (she IS my little mother,
after all). After repeating "gthigthide" she said: "No....that don't sound
right. That bark we used to throw in there...that's "e'zhoN zhi'de". We used
to twist it up and throw it those tubs. Just a little bit. It helps you
digest that meat. Too much meat and all that fry bread.....it'll stop you
up. That bark...well you know...it helps it to go through you better. That's
real old time way. But these young girls today....they don't that." I'll
spare you the rest of the diatribe that followed.

Here's a partial list of some foods. I have another list with plants and
some of their uses, but I need to dig that out.

Beans = hi bthiN'ge
Cabbage = wa'xtha
Carrots = mashtiN'ge watha'te (rabbit meal)
Corn = wataN'zi
 Sweet Corn = wataN'zi ski'the (corn sweet)
 Hominy (in preparation) = wabi'shnu'de
 Hominy (cooked) = wabthu'ga
 Corn mush = washaN'ge, or aNba'gthe (??)

Cucumber = kuku'mi
Onion = mazhaN'xe
Peas = hi bthiN'ge bu'taN (beans - round)
Potato = nu
 Sweet Potato = nu ski'the (potato - sweet)
 Pumpkin = wa'taN
  Green Squash = wa'taN ha shu'ga ha (pumpkin with a thick skin)
  Stripped Squash (Hubbard Squash?) = shu wa'taN thigu'zhe ha
  Any small squash or pumpkin = wa'taN bthaN'ze

Radish = paN'xe zhi'de
Rice = si wani'de (Wild Rice = siN'gthe)
Tomato = wazhi'de
Turnip = nu'gthe

· Foods - Traditional Vegetables

Wild Beans = taN'de hi bthiN'ge
Wild Cabbage (milkweed) = wa'xtha
Wild Cabbage = wa'xtha si taN - or - wa'xtha si taNga (milkweed just prior
to blooming)
Mushrooms = teni'xa ugthe'zhe -or- tenix(stop) ugthe'zhe
Wild Potatoes = taN'de he nu (??)
Water Lilly Roots = tetha'wi

· Foods - Fruits

Apple - she
Orange - she zi (apple - yellow)
Banana - wax'ta sne'de (fruit - long) or te'thawi (old Ponca)
Blackberries = aNgthaNka maN'ge
"Black Hulls" = nasha'maN
Cantaloupe = saka'thide snu snu
Cherries = naN'pa
Grapes = ha zi (skin - yellow)
Possum Grapes = ha zi bthaN'ze
Gooseberries = pe'zi
Lemon (or lime) = she zi nuhi'shki
Mulberries = ma'zi zhu
Peaches = she hi shku'be (apple - hairy)
Pear = she pa taN (apple with a big nose - old Ponca)
Pear = ma'chu (grizzly bear - from "Polar Bear Brand" canned pears)
Plums = kaN'de
Wild Plums = kaNze xa'de (??)
Persimmons = ta'spaN
Strawberries = ba'shte
Watermelon = saka'thide


· Foods - Meat and Wild Game

The general term for meat is tanu'ka.

Antelope = tachu'ge
Badger = xu'ga
Beaver = zha'be
Buffalo = te
Beef = te ska
 Dry Meat = Ta
Meat Soup, or Soup = ta'ni (dry meat - water)
 Ground beef, hamburger = tanu'ka gatu'be
 Meat Gravy (steam fry) = tanu'ka wani'de
 Barbecue = ta uga'ti
Barbecue Soup = ta uga'ti ta'ni

 Half Beef = thi'a maN'saN thi'ha (??)
 Hind Quarter = te zhiN'ga
Dried Meat from Hind Quarter = wa'ga
 Front Quarter = te a (buffalo, or cow - arm)
 Rib Section (for BBQ) = te zhu
 Ribs = te thi'ti
 Backbone meat = te naNka'ta (??)
 Neck bone = te pa'hi
 Intestines = te shi'be
Tripe = tani' xa
Kidneys =te asaN'tasi (??)
Liver = te pi (??)
 Tongue = tathe'ze
Lung = te tha'xi (??)

Chicken = wazhiN'ga, or wazhiN'ga  zhi'de
Deer = tax'ti
Duck = mi'xa
Elk = aN'pa
Goose = mi'xa, or mi'xa taN'ga
Guinea hen = watha'zai
Hog = kuku'si
Moose = pa shtaN'ga
Muskrat = siN sne'de wagi'the
Quail = u'shi wa'the
Rabbit = mashtiN'ge
Jack Rabbit = mashtiNge ska (??)
Cotton-tail Rabbit = ???
Racoon = mi'ka
Sheep = ha xu'de (skin - gray)
Skunk = maN'ga
Squirrel = siN'ga
Ground Squirrel = he'xthiN
 Turkey = zizi'ka


· Foods - Fish and Turtles

Fish = huhu
Bass = hu hu i'taN'ga (fish - big)
Carp = hu btha'ska (fish - flat)
Cat Fish = pu'ze hu hu -or- tu'ze hu hu
Eel = we'sa huhu (snake - fish)
Garr = hu pa si sne'de (fish - nose - long)
Perch = hu btha'ska zhiN'ga (fish - flat - small)
 Trout = hu bthu'ga

 Turtle = ke
 Terrapin = ke gthe'ze (turtle - speckled)
 Soft shelled turtle = ke ha bibi'da
 Diamond Back Turtle = ke ha maNzhi'de
 Snapping Turtle = ke taN'ga

· Foods - Liquids
Water = ni
Milk = maNze' ni (breast water)
Buttermilk = maNze' ni we'gthi
Coffee = maNka sa'be
Tea = xa'de maNka
Soda Pop = gatu'zhi
Grape Juice = ha'zi ni (grape - water)
Orange Juice = she zi ni

· Foods - Breads

Bread = wamu'ske
Fry Bread = washi zhi'gthaN
Top Bread, or Cowboy Bread = wamu'ske ke'thiN
Biscuit = wamu'ske (same as "bread")
Corn bread = wataN'zi wazhi'gtha


· Foods - Miscellaneous

Salt = ni ski'the
Pepper = wiu'gihaN
Sugar = zha'ni
Cane Sugar = zha'ni hi
Flour = wamu'ske xu'de (bread - gray)
Baking Powder, Baking Soda, or Yeast = wenaN'bi'xa  (??)
Corn meal = wathi'tube
Oat Meal = shaN'ge watha'te (horse - meal)
Butter = bawe'gthi
Lard, Oil, or Grease = we'gthi
Syrup = zha'ni snu snu
Honey = kigthaN'xe
Candy = zha'ni bu'ta
Ice Cream = nu'xe bawe'gthi


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Sat Feb 11 22:32:37 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:32:37 -0700
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <001801c62f4c$75af98e0$f5f1e544@tu.ok.cox.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.153237.0700.>

A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Feb 12 00:07:21 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:07:21 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.180721.0600.>

> A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.

Gilmore (1919:24) included a comment on making ropes/cords:
 

 "The Omaha used to cook the inner bark with buffalo fat in rendering out the tallow.  They considered that the bark gave a desirable flavor to the fat and added a preservative quality, preventing it from becoming rancid.  When the rendering was finished the children always asked for the pieces of cooked bark, which they prized as titbits."  From this I assume the kids liked to chew (eat?) the bark after it had been in the cooking juices.

 

Gilmore adds:  "The inner bark was also used for making ropes and cords."  He doesn't say by whom, but he gives words for 'Ulmus fulva' in Dakota, Omaha-Ponca, Winnebago and Pawnee.

 

Bob


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sun Feb 12 00:15:27 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:15:27 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.181527.0600.>

> A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.


I never saw it eaten or chewed by anyone. They used to fish it out of the
tubs before they got ready to serve.

Tom Leonard


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Feb 13 22:44:55 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:44:55 -0700
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE60188775A@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.154455.0700.>

Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels?  I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature.  I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative.  I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.


From okibjonathan at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 14 02:34:42 2006
From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:34:42 -0800
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602131539430.18499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.183442.0800.>

  Taken from: http://www.wholehealthmd.com/refshelf/substances_view/1,1525,10056,00.html     "Well before the first European settlers arrived in North America, Native American tribes had discovered that by scraping away the rough outer bark of the majestic slippery elm tree (Ulmus rubra), they could uncover a remarkable healing substance in the inner bark. They beat the bark into a powder and added water to create a "slippery" concoction ideal for soothing toothaches, healing scrapes, and dispelling constipation.   Later, surgeons in the American Revolution turned to this wilderness remedy to treat gunshot wounds. During the same period, a wholesome and nutritious broth made from the bark was fed to infants and older people."     "Long recognized by health authorities in the United States as an effective medicine, slippery elm bark presently has the approval of the Food and Drug Administration as a nonprescription demulcent (soothing agent) that can be taken internally. Vario
 us
 sources refer to this classic North American herb as American elm, Indian elm, moose elm, red elm, and sweet elm. Don't get confused by the names: Just make sure any product that you purchase actually contains the pale inner bark of Ulmus rubra Muhl (once also known as Ulmus fulva Michx)." 

     Health Benefits     "The popularity of slippery elm bark has endured, no doubt, because it works so well for coating and soothing irritated or inflamed mucous membranes. This is the work of an ingredient in the inner bark called mucilage, a gummy, gel-like substance that when ingested forms a protective layer along the throat, digestive tract, and other areas. Astringent compounds in the herb called tannins help tighten and constrict the tissue.   For the same reasons, salves and ointments containing slippery elm have long been popular for coating well-cleaned minor wounds and burns to protect them from further injury...."

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:

  Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels? I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature. I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative. I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.




Be a friend...
Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,
go to:   http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org
 































__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060213/c9f56649/attachment.html>

From okibjonathan at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 14 03:16:16 2006
From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:16:16 -0800
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning.
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.191616.0800.>

Howdy,
  A friend of mine was given the following Lakota words with a general interpretation as follows:
   
  "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.  
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.  
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape." 
   
  "Lakota women think carefully.
  Our children are raised by you.
  The people rely on you."
   
  However, I realize that this is not the literal translation. I'm not even sure all the words are spelled correctly. Could someone help in distiguishing the difference between what the implied meaning is and what it actually says in literal translation?
   
  Any help would be appreciated.
  Thanks,
  Jonathan
   
  
 


Be a friend...
Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,
go to:   http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org
 































		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060213/859beb76/attachment.html>

From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de  Tue Feb 14 09:20:21 2006
From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:20:21 +0100
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
Message-ID: <TUE.14.FEB.2006.102021.0100.>

"Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye. 
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya. 
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
 
"Lakota women think carefully.
Our children are raised by you.
The people rely on you."


At least the first line makes sense and seems to be translated quite 
literally:

lakxo'ta wiN'yaN kiN nag^'ksapa ye

nag^i' - soul spirit
ksa'pA - (to be) wise, prudent
nag^i'ksapA - Buechel: "elated over one's fulfilled preditions"
ye - female enclitic for commands etc.

hence about: Lakota woman (sg.!) be proud...!

2nd line:

niye' uN - by you
wichiN'ca - a girl

3rd line:

oya'ate kiN - the people
haN'yaN ?, (haNyaN'kheci - tomorrow)
wachi' - to dance
wachi'yA - to make dance(?)
so maybe wach'iniya pi ye (wachi'niya pe)???
(the people will/should make you dance)???

My poor two cents


Alfred


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 14 15:09:04 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:09:04 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <TUE.14.FEB.2006.090904.0600.>

Botanists have tested the theory with the Acacia and it seems to have some validity.  It's possible that the mucus just coats the stomach and intestinal lining and prevents absorption of cholesterol.  I'm not an expert, but it's in our textbook (so naturally it must be true).    :-)
 
I'm sure Lipitor, etc. is a better deal.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E
Sent: Mon 2/13/2006 4:44 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.



Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels?  I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature.  I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative.  I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 20 16:38:51 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:38:51 +0000
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
In-Reply-To: <43F1A0D5.6060109@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.163851.0000.>

Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
translated.
The second line seems to be 
niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
probably "because of you, or for your sake or through
you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each other".
Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
wachiNiyaNpe
"the people rely on you" is as translated from
wachiNyaN "to rely on"
Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
"the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable

Bruce

--- "Alfred W. Tüting" <ti at fa-kuan.muc.de> wrote:

> "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye. 
> Niye on etanyan wici caka caya. 
> Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
>  
> "Lakota women think carefully.
> Our children are raised by you.
> The people rely on you."
> 
> 
> At least the first line makes sense and seems to be
> translated quite 
> literally:
> 
> lakxo'ta wiN'yaN kiN nag^'ksapa ye
> 
> nag^i' - soul spirit
> ksa'pA - (to be) wise, prudent
> nag^i'ksapA - Buechel: "elated over one's fulfilled
> preditions"
> ye - female enclitic for commands etc.
> 
> hence about: Lakota woman (sg.!) be proud...!
> 
> 2nd line:
> 
> niye' uN - by you
> wichiN'ca - a girl
> 
> 3rd line:
> 
> oya'ate kiN - the people
> haN'yaN ?, (haNyaN'kheci - tomorrow)
> wachi' - to dance
> wachi'yA - to make dance(?)
> so maybe wach'iniya pi ye (wachi'niya pe)???
> (the people will/should make you dance)???
> 
> My poor two cents
> 
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


From jpboyle at uchicago.edu  Mon Feb 20 18:55:55 2006
From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:55:55 -1100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.075555.1100.>

Hi All,

I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a 
demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has looked at these besides 
Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel obligated to reply to this e-mail 
anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:

Demonstrative Noun-Determiner

I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has anyone 
thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X’bar 
framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and 
an NP complement (as in 1)?

1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]

	    DP
            / !
  DemP   D’
	    /  !
         NP  D

This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume, right?

Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP complement 
(as in 2)?

2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]

	  DemP
              !
          Dem’
            /  !
     Dem  DP
	        !
                D’
               / !
            NP D

This structure would be both right branching and left branching (possible but 
not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either analysis?

Thanks

John Boyle


From linguista at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 19:15:59 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.131559.0600.>

Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation "demonstrative" in general. It
seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity and the syntactic
behaviour of determiners under the same category - which is clearly NOT
appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan deictics don't c-command
D at all, but are contained within NP?

- Bryan Gordon

On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu <jpboyle at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a
> demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has looked at these besides
> Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel obligated to reply to this
> e-mail
> anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
> I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has
> anyone
> thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X'bar
> framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC
> and
> an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
> 1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>             DP
>             / !
>   DemP   D'
>             /  !
>          NP  D
>
> This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume,
> right?
>
> Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP
> complement
> (as in 2)?
>
> 2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>           DemP
>               !
>           Dem'
>             /  !
>      Dem  DP
>                 !
>                 D'
>                / !
>             NP D
>
> This structure would be both right branching and left branching (possible
> but
> not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either analysis?
>
> Thanks
>
> John Boyle
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060220/8845801c/attachment.html>

From jfu at centrum.cz  Mon Feb 20 19:30:29 2006
From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:30:29 +0100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.203029.0100.>

> jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> 
> anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> 
> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner


Lakota allows two structures:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner


Jan


From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de  Mon Feb 20 18:49:28 2006
From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:49:28 +0100
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.194928.0100.>

"Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."

"Lakota women think carefully.
Our children are raised by you.
The people rely on you."


 > Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
translated.
The second line seems to be
niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
probably "because of you, or for your sake or through
you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each other".
Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
wachiNiyaNpe <<


Thanks Bruce, this makes a lot of sense (icha'g^A - to spring up. grow, 
as grass, a child etc.; to become, as a man B.). I obviously was led 
astray by the translation 'our children': wishful thinking!
Yet, there's no way to 'wici caka caya' ;((
"Make them (the people) grow/increase through you!"


"the people rely on you" is as translated from wachiNyaN "to rely on"
Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
"the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable <<


Yes, wachiN'yaN -> wachiNniyaN pi ye -> wachiNniyaN pe
depend upon (you) makes sense.
How would you translate *kinhaN' here? And the 'pi ye -> pe'?? if/when?

Best regards

Alfred


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 20 19:55:14 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:55:14 +0000
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
In-Reply-To: <43FA0F38.8080002@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.195514.0000.>

Hi Alfred
The kiNhaN is an alternative to kiN or ki meaning
'the' .  It may be that kiNhaNyaN is a possible form
in songs.  While the -pe would be the plural -pi plus
the feminine sentence final marker -ye giving -pe.  If
it was spoken by a man it would be -pelo.  
Bruce
--- "Alfred W. Tüting" <ti at fa-kuan.muc.de> wrote:

> "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.
> Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.
> Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
> 
> "Lakota women think carefully.
> Our children are raised by you.
> The people rely on you."
> 
> 
>  > Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
> Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
> translated.
> The second line seems to be
> niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
> probably "because of you, or for your sake or
> through
> you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
> is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
> wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each
> other".
> Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
> wachiNiyaNpe <<
> 
> 
> Thanks Bruce, this makes a lot of sense (icha'g^A -
> to spring up. grow, 
> as grass, a child etc.; to become, as a man B.). I
> obviously was led 
> astray by the translation 'our children': wishful
> thinking!
> Yet, there's no way to 'wici caka caya' ;((
> "Make them (the people) grow/increase through you!"
> 
> 
> "the people rely on you" is as translated from
> wachiNyaN "to rely on"
> Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
> "the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
> singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable <<
> 
> 
> Yes, wachiN'yaN -> wachiNniyaN pi ye -> wachiNniyaN
> pe
> depend upon (you) makes sense.
> How would you translate *kinhaN' here? And the 'pi
> ye -> pe'?? if/when?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


From jpboyle at uchicago.edu  Mon Feb 20 20:45:02 2006
From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:45:02 -1100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.094502.1100.>

Thanks Bryan.  I’m not really sure that demonstrative is the right name for these 
things to either. Given what Jan said about Lakota being able to have both:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner

we may want to assume your right and the structure is:

	 DP
	   !
	   D’
	 /   !
       NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N’
           !
           N

Where DEM can either proceed or follow N.  Thus, it would c-command N but 
not D. Would this give us a better analysis?  Jan, what is the difference between 
the word orders in (1) and (2)?

Thanks,

John Boyle

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
>From: "Bryan Gordon" <linguista at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives  
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>
>   Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation
>   "demonstrative" in general. It
>   seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity
>   and the syntactic
>   behaviour of determiners under the same category -
>   which is clearly NOT
>   appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan
>   deictics don't c-command
>   D at all, but are contained within NP?
>
>   - Bryan Gordon
>
>   On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu
>   <jpboyle at uchicago.edu > wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a
>     determiner and a
>     demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has
>     looked at these besides
>     Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel
>     obligated to reply to this e-mail
>     anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
>     Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>     I think this is true for other Siouan languages as
>     well, correct? Has anyone
>     thought about how to analyze these constructions
>     (specifically in an X'bar
>     framework)?  Are they DPs that have a
>     demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
>     an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
>     1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>                 DP
>                 / !
>       DemP   D'
>                 /  !
>              NP  D
>
>     This would make it all left branching, which is
>     what we would assume, right?
>
>     Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that
>     then take an NP complement
>     (as in 2)?
>
>     2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>               DemP
>                   !
>               Dem'
>                 /  !
>          Dem  DP
>                     !
>                     D'
>                    / !
>                 NP D
>
>     This structure would be both right branching and
>     left branching (possible but
>     not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either
>     analysis?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     John Boyle


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Feb 20 21:04:58 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:04:58 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <001301c63654$2a8fd5a0$0201a8c0@ullrichnet>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.140458.0700.>

I have thought about this a little, but more from the semantic angle than
the syntactic one.  I think that in Lakota the he/le/ka set marks
specificity rather than (or in addition to) deixis, while the "ki/waN'
particles mark definiteness in the sense of old information/uniqueness.
That is why the head of a relative clause is usually marked with both the
INDEFINITE article and a demonstrative.  To say something like "the boy
who saw the horses told us about them" you need the equivalent of 'there
was a certain boy; that boy saw the horses;  he told us about them'.  In
Lak. "[[[[boy a] that] horses saw] the][ he.told.us"].
	To me that implies TWO layers of phrase structure, a DP headed by
he/le/ka, and a specificity phrase headed by ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN etc.
	And that's why the "ki" is always postposed, but the "he" set can
either precede the N or follow N+ki.
	There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem looks as
if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
"the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
intuition, however.
	Best,
	David


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:

>
>
> > jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> >
> > anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> >
> > Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>
> Lakota allows two structures:
>
> 1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
>
> 2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner
>
>
> Jan
>
>
>
>


From jfu at centrum.cz  Mon Feb 20 21:06:01 2006
From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:01 +0100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <f2c6678c.8db8641b.81c0b00@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.220601.0100.>

Sorry John, I copy&pasted the word into a wrong order. The two structures
are:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
 
2) Noun Determiner Demonstrative    (not Noun Demonstrative Determiner]


> Jan, what is 
> the difference between 
> the word orders in (1) and (2)?

To my knowledge they both have the same meaning.
It has been my impression that construction (2) is more frequent or more
prefered by speakers than (1), but I might be wrong. My text corpus hasn't
been fully tagged in this regard to analyze the frequency at this point.
But I am quite certain that the two constructions are fully interchangeable.
If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Jan


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Feb 20 21:16:24 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:16:24 -0700
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602201234520.13731@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.141624.0700.>

John,
	I got my layers backwards in the previous message.  The highest
phrase should be the specificity phrase, with he/le/ka (traditionally the
demonstratives) as its head; the comp of that would then be a DP with the
article as its head; and the NP would be inside that.  We need to invent a
name that doesn't sound so much like "specifier" for "specificity.
	Some evidence:

	N+ article is fixed word order; DP + specificity can have the
particle either before or after the phrase (but I don't think it's free
variation)

	the specificity particle (a.k.a. demonstrative) can substitute for
the whole construction in a pronoun-like way.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:

>
> I have thought about this a little, but more from the semantic angle than
> the syntactic one.  I think that in Lakota the he/le/ka set marks
> specificity rather than (or in addition to) deixis, while the "ki/waN'
> particles mark definiteness in the sense of old information/uniqueness.
> That is why the head of a relative clause is usually marked with both the
> INDEFINITE article and a demonstrative.  To say something like "the boy
> who saw the horses told us about them" you need the equivalent of 'there
> was a certain boy; that boy saw the horses;  he told us about them'.  In
> Lak. "[[[[boy a] that] horses saw] the][ he.told.us"].
> 	To me that implies TWO layers of phrase structure, a DP headed by
> he/le/ka, and a specificity phrase headed by ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN etc.
> 	And that's why the "ki" is always postposed, but the "he" set can
> either precede the N or follow N+ki.
> 	There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem looks as
> if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> intuition, however.
> 	Best,
> 	David
>
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> > >
> > > anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> > >
> > > Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
> >
> >
> > Lakota allows two structures:
> >
> > 1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
> >
> > 2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner
> >
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 00:04:44 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:04:44 -0600
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602201411450.13731@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.180444.0600.>

David,

This is a very interesting idea you are raising, but I wonder if you could
clarify it a little by offering interlinear example sentences, with
bracketted clauses labeled.

If I am following you correctly, you propose two grammatical categories of
functional morphemes that qualify or constrain noun phrases in Lakhota.
Category 1 is the set of 'specificity' markers (he/le/ka), which have also
been called "demonstratives".  Category 2 is the set of 'definiteness'
markers (ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN, etc.), some of which  may also be called
"articles".

To make a sentence conveying the information "The boy who saw the horses
told us about them", three assertions are implied:

1. There was a certain boy;

2. He saw the horses;

3. He told us about them.

In Lakhota, this works out to something like:

  Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw]  ki  [he.told.us].
  Boy       a   that horses         he.saw.them the  he.told.us.

(My Lakhota, of course, is rusty!  Please correct!)

The article/definiteness-marker (waN, ki) ties tightly to the end of the
preceding material to wrap it up into a noun phrase.

  [[Hoks^i'la] waN]
  [A [boy]]

  [[Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw] ]  ki]
  [The [boy who saw the horses]]

Its order is fixed.

The demonstrative/specificity-marker (he) is more loose in where it
appears.  It can function either as a noun modifier (like Japanese sono) or
as a representative of the noun phrase itself (Japanese sore).  In this
respect, it is bi-functional, like the English word 'that'.  ("Did you see
that horse?" vs. "Did you see that?")

In the construction above, the function of the demonstrative he is
arguable.  There are two possibilities:

1. It modifies the preceding NP as "that (newly introduced) boy".

2. It is a stand-alone noun representative placed in apposition to the
preceding NP as "A boy, he saw the horses..."

>            There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem
looks as
> if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> intuition, however.

That would fit with possibility 2.  I have the same intuition, both about
Lakhota he and OP e.  I think the "resumptive pronoun" construction may be
a common grammatical feature in these languages.

Is the above discussion a fair paraphrase of your argument?

Best,
Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 03:54:04 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:54:04 -0700
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <OFA3963324.C672C619-ON8625711B.007E5097-8625711B.00832092@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.205404.0700.>

Hi, Rory,
	It's flattering to be taken so seriously.  I'll try to respond to
your comments below.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> David,
>
> If I am following you correctly, you propose two grammatical categories of
> functional morphemes that qualify or constrain noun phrases in Lakhota.
> Category 1 is the set of 'specificity' markers (he/le/ka), which have also
> been called "demonstratives".  Category 2 is the set of 'definiteness'
> markers (ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN, etc.), some of which  may also be called
> "articles".

	I tend to call all of the items in Category 2 "articles". For
those who don't know the Lakota details, ki is definited and everything
else is indefinite; the choice depends on the number and count/mass
category of the noun and the realis/irrealis context of the NP; "cha" is
an idefinite article used only on clauses.


>
> To make a sentence conveying the information "The boy who saw the horses
> told us about them", three assertions are implied:
>
> 1. There was a certain boy;
>
> 2. He saw the horses;
>
> 3. He told us about them.
>
> In Lakhota, this works out to something like:
>
>   Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw]  ki  [he.told.us].
>   Boy       a   that horses         he.saw.them the  he.told.us.
>
> (My Lakhota, of course, is rusty!  Please correct!)
>

	The is exactly right. 'Saw them' would be waNwichayaNke.  If the
sentence were 'A boy who saw the horses told us about them', the "ki"
would be replaced by "cha".  So the article at the end of the clause
indicates the definiteness status of the head of the clause.


> The article/definiteness-marker (waN, ki) ties tightly to the end of the
> preceding material to wrap it up into a noun phrase.
>
>   [[Hoks^i'la] waN]
>   [A [boy]]
>
>   [[Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw] ]  ki]
>   [The [boy who saw the horses]]
>
> Its order is fixed.
>
	Yes.  Perhaps a little more literally, you could try the
paraphrase:

	[the [a certain boy saw the horses]]


> The demonstrative/specificity-marker (he) is more loose in where it
> appears.  It can function either as a noun modifier (like Japanese sono) or
> as a representative of the noun phrase itself (Japanese sore).  In this
> respect, it is bi-functional, like the English word 'that'.  ("Did you see
> that horse?" vs. "Did you see that?")

	This is true, but not in the relative clause construction just
cited as an example.  So in simple noun phrases you could say

	He hoks^ila ki 'that boy'

or 	Hoks^ila ki he 'that boy' or 'the boy, he'

and it's also possible to say just "hoks^ila he" for 'that boy'.  I don't
know the functionarl difference between using or omittingthe "ki", but you
cannot omit it if you start with "He".

>
> In the construction above, the function of the demonstrative he is
> arguable.  There are two possibilities:
>
> 1. It modifies the preceding NP as "that (newly introduced) boy".
>
> 2. It is a stand-alone noun representative placed in apposition to the
> preceding NP as "A boy, he saw the horses..."

Actually, if by "the construction above" you mean the relative clause
construction, I don't think either of these is true.  I would argue that
the "he" functions to mark the 'boy' as particular or specific, although
as yet unidentified or indefinited (signalled by waN) IN THIS
CONSTRUCTION, NOT IN GENERAL. In the relative clause construction,
both the waN and the he modify the preceding N; the pronoun reading
seems to me to be excluded.  But I'm not sure about this.
	This is where I get the idea that "ki/waN"  and "he/le" indicate
definiteness and specificity separately; I try to reflect "specific" by
using the English word 'certain".  The two choices you just gave would be
available to regular NPs of the form N ki he.
>
> >            There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem
> looks as
> > if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> > "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> > intuition, however.
>
> That would fit with possibility 2.  I have the same intuition, both about
> Lakhota he and OP e.  I think the "resumptive pronoun" construction may be
> a common grammatical feature in these languages.
>
> Is the above discussion a fair paraphrase of your argument?

	Very much so, and very clearly described.


>
> Best,
> Rory
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 19:24:22 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:24:22 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.132422.0600.>

That would be my guess too.  Bob
 
> In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
definitely distinct words.
>
> Bob

Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
or resumptive pronoun relationship.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 19:44:33 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:44:33 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602210920300.11169@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.134433.0600.>

> Rory,
>            Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
> dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
>            David

That's a good question, to which I wish I had a better answer.  The N
dem-det construction occurs occasionally in the 19th century historical
literature, and I'm sure our speakers have not objected to constructions
using it, but off the top of my head I can't recall them ever using it
spontaneously.  N dem-det may be a device for packing information into
complex sentences, which do not seem to be much used anymore, at least by
our speakers.

What I think I can say is that in both N-det and dem-det constructions, the
first element is sharply accented, with the -det very de-accented and
almost swallowed by the preceding element, as it were.  The relationship of
-det to its preceding element is apparently very tight.

((Thinking about it a little bit more, perhaps I do recall the intonational
pattern of some speaker-originated N dem-det constructions, but I'd like to
make what I say very tentative until I can confirm it.  I THINK I have
heard such phrases as "Nu' s^e'akHa" or "Wa?u' s^e'dhiNkHe", in which there
seems to be a tiny bit of dead space, or prolongation of the accented final
vowel, at the end of the noun before the demonstrative, which itself is
sharply accented as usual.  The effect might be like putting a comma after
the noun.  Again, don't take this impression of mine too seriously yet.
I'll aim to keep this question in mind in future sessions with our
speakers.))

Perhaps other Dhegihanists can weigh in on this?

Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 19:46:17 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:46:17 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OF5D249F86.3D512D22-ON8625711C.0068FD37-8625711C.006B4E5F@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.124617.0700.>

 The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
construction.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> > Rory,
> >            Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
> > dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
> >            David
>
> That's a good question, to which I wish I had a better answer.  The N
> dem-det construction occurs occasionally in the 19th century historical
> literature, and I'm sure our speakers have not objected to constructions
> using it, but off the top of my head I can't recall them ever using it
> spontaneously.  N dem-det may be a device for packing information into
> complex sentences, which do not seem to be much used anymore, at least by
> our speakers.
>
> What I think I can say is that in both N-det and dem-det constructions, the
> first element is sharply accented, with the -det very de-accented and
> almost swallowed by the preceding element, as it were.  The relationship of
> -det to its preceding element is apparently very tight.
>
> ((Thinking about it a little bit more, perhaps I do recall the intonational
> pattern of some speaker-originated N dem-det constructions, but I'd like to
> make what I say very tentative until I can confirm it.  I THINK I have
> heard such phrases as "Nu' s^e'akHa" or "Wa?u' s^e'dhiNkHe", in which there
> seems to be a tiny bit of dead space, or prolongation of the accented final
> vowel, at the end of the noun before the demonstrative, which itself is
> sharply accented as usual.  The effect might be like putting a comma after
> the noun.  Again, don't take this impression of mine too seriously yet.
> I'll aim to keep this question in mind in future sessions with our
> speakers.))
>
> Perhaps other Dhegihanists can weigh in on this?
>
> Rory
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 16:21:08 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:21:08 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OFB158B55A.846D867B-ON8625711C.0056A249-8625711C.00563DD5@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.092108.0700.>

Rory,
	Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
	David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> > Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
> >
> > DEM N - DET             and
> > N DEM-DET
> >
> > In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
> single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
> they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
> definitely distinct words.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
> of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
> or resumptive pronoun relationship.
>
> Rory
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 15:05:34 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:05:34 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.090534.0600.>

In that case Dhegiha is a bit different.  The order I gave in my recent post is the correct one.  I don't think the structures are interchangeable.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Jan F. Ullrich
Sent: Mon 2/20/2006 3:06 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives




Sorry John, I copy&pasted the word into a wrong order. The two structures
are:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Determiner Demonstrative    (not Noun Demonstrative Determiner]


> Jan, what is
> the difference between
> the word orders in (1) and (2)?

To my knowledge they both have the same meaning.
It has been my impression that construction (2) is more frequent or more
prefered by speakers than (1), but I might be wrong. My text corpus hasn't
been fully tagged in this regard to analyze the frequency at this point.
But I am quite certain that the two constructions are fully interchangeable.
If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Jan


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 14:59:00 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:59:00 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.085900.0600.>

Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
 
DEM N - DET             and
N DEM-DET
 
In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are definitely distinct words.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of jpboyle at uchicago.edu
Sent: Mon 2/20/2006 2:45 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives



Thanks Bryan.  I'm not really sure that demonstrative is the right name for these
things to either. Given what Jan said about Lakota being able to have both:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner

we may want to assume your right and the structure is:

         DP
           !
           D'
         /   !
       NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N'
           !
           N

Where DEM can either proceed or follow N.  Thus, it would c-command N but
not D. Would this give us a better analysis?  Jan, what is the difference between
the word orders in (1) and (2)?

Thanks,

John Boyle

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
>From: "Bryan Gordon" <linguista at gmail.com> 
>Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives 
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>
>   Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation
>   "demonstrative" in general. It
>   seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity
>   and the syntactic
>   behaviour of determiners under the same category -
>   which is clearly NOT
>   appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan
>   deictics don't c-command
>   D at all, but are contained within NP?
>
>   - Bryan Gordon
>
>   On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu
>   <jpboyle at uchicago.edu > wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a
>     determiner and a
>     demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has
>     looked at these besides
>     Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel
>     obligated to reply to this e-mail
>     anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
>     Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>     I think this is true for other Siouan languages as
>     well, correct? Has anyone
>     thought about how to analyze these constructions
>     (specifically in an X'bar
>     framework)?  Are they DPs that have a
>     demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
>     an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
>     1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>                 DP
>                 / !
>       DemP   D'
>                 /  !
>              NP  D
>
>     This would make it all left branching, which is
>     what we would assume, right?
>
>     Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that
>     then take an NP complement
>     (as in 2)?
>
>     2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>               DemP
>                   !
>               Dem'
>                 /  !
>          Dem  DP
>                     !
>                     D'
>                    / !
>                 NP D
>
>     This structure would be both right branching and
>     left branching (possible but
>     not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either
>     analysis?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     John Boyle


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 15:54:28 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:54:28 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887782@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.095428.0600.>

> Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
>
> DEM N - DET             and
> N DEM-DET
>
> In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
definitely distinct words.
>
> Bob

Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
or resumptive pronoun relationship.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 23:32:20 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:32:20 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211245340.18376@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.173220.0600.>

>  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> construction.

David,

I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
construction in the historical literature.

Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Feb 22 00:21:50 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:21:50 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OFA037A889.79376FE8-ON8625711C.007F8384-8625711C.008027B3@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.172150.0700.>

Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > construction.
>
> David,
>
> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> construction in the historical literature.
>
> Rory
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 07:41:52 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:41:52 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211720440.2128@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.004152.0700.>

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
+ V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.

If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
resumptive and/or appositive.

I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.

I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.

I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
Catherine!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 07:56:40 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:56:40 -0700
Subject: Dakota ki(N)haN, k?uN, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211720440.2128@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.005640.0700.>

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
> the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
> the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
> articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

Harking back to Bruce's recent comments I wonder if kiNhaN might fit in
some way into the pattern of kiN (ki in Lakota) vs. k?uN.  Bob usually
explains k?uN as involving something like kiN + uN Perfect-Aux or *ruN
PAST, I think.  Could kihaN be a continuative variant?  Is there a
ki(N)he?  I've noticed that reflexives of *rhe tend to alternate with
*rhaN in each language, cf. OP =the 'the upright inanimate' vs. thaN 'the
standing animate obviative'.  I think there's a j^e ~ j^aN pair in
Winnebago, too.

I sometimes wonder if certain Dhegiha forms with *-ki might not have a
petrified reflex of *kiN 'definite'.  The most common examples are forms
comparable to Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi 'watermonster' vs. wakkaNda 'God',
but I have seen at least one more, I think.  A slight complication is that
I'm not sure whether either wakkaNda itself or wakkaNdagi (or both) are
most plausible in OP (and Dhegiha generally) as inherited forms or as
borrowings.  Probably all the Dhegiha forms have to be considered as a
set.  In any event, this is an irregular, ill-explained area of Dhegiha
morphology, and an area in which loans might be expected.  I don't
remember at the moment if (?) wakkaN per se is attested.  The usual
equivalent of Dakotan wakhaN (which would be a good cognate of OP (?)
wakkaN) is xube.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 08:18:46 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:18:46 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.011846.0700.>

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote:
> I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a
> demonstrative.

> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
> I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has anyone
> thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X’bar
> framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
> an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
> 1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]

     [ [DemP [ NP ] ] DP]   right?

> This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume, right?

> Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP complement
> (as in 2)?
>
> 2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]

    [ DemP [ [ NP DP ] ] ]  right?

Not to forget where this started, if I understood David and Rory, and if I
am not to X-Bar impaired to be useful, I make it the first.  Forms like Dh
N dem=det and Da N=det dem represent two successive DemP's.

Is it quite right to say DemP and DP in these examples?  Isn't it more
like DetP => [ [ DemP ] Det ] and DemP => [Dem [ NP ] ]?

I don't quite see how to say that in Dh Dem alone is OK, and NP alone, but
not Det alone:  it has to be NP=Det or Dem=Det.  I think in Dakotan it is
Dem or NP alone is OK, not not Det:  it has to be NP=Det.


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Feb 22 21:49:40 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:49:40 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.154940.0600.>

The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and, I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.  
 
"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]] or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like properties also.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives




Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > construction.
>
> David,
>
> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> construction in the historical literature.
>
> Rory
>


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 23 14:41:17 2006
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:41:17 -0800
Subject: Dakota ki(N)haN, k?uN, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602220041580.27499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.064117.0800.>

I wonder if kiNhaN might fit in
some way into the pattern of kiN (ki in Lakota) vs. k?uN. Bob usually
explains k?uN as involving something like kiN + uN Perfect-Aux or *ruN
PAST, I think. Could kihaN be a continuative variant? Is there a
ki(N)he?
   
  In  my data, kiN and kiNhaN are used interchangeably in all contexts, although I would assume, as John indicates, that -haN either derives from progressive -haN or from the source of the latter, -haN 'to stand (inanimate subject)'. KiNhe does not exist, and there is no trace of a continuative/progressive/otherwise aspecually charged connotation of kiNhaN in my corpus.
  Footnote on the previous discussion: In addition to the NOUN plus DEM plus ARTICLE patterns, there is also a pattern  NOUN DEM, with the article absent, which is used interchangeably with the two other patterns. Actaully, my speakers prefer the latter patterns, at least the "youngsters" who are under 75. The new pattern probably arose under the influence of English syntax, in which DEM and ART never cooccur.
   
  Regina
   
   
   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/48ff2316/attachment.html>

From mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU  Thu Feb 23 17:37:25 2006
From: mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU (Mirzayan Armik)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:37:25 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602220016110.27499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.103725.0700.>

  I'm not sure how much this will help, but I thought I'd send just a note 
about the pitch-accent of these constructions in Lakhota as I've seen them 
in some of my analysis.

I can't say anything too conclusive because I was actually concentrating 
on the pitch accents on other parts of intonational phrase when I did 
some work on the subject.

The piece of data I was working with didn't have too many explicit noun 
phrases that had both the dem and the det, but I do remember running into 
just a couple of cases of [dem N det] and [N det dem].

The one Lakhota [dem N det] construction that I remember was:

    le* aNpe*tu ki osni*yelo
    this  day   the  it's cold
    dem   N     det

In this clause the "le" has a rather high and broad pitch peak followed by 
a downstepped peak on the 2nd syllable of the noun. It is a bit hard to 
figure out what the "ki" is doing as it is really short, compressed 
between the noun and the following verb. It seems to almost participate in 
somewhat of an upstep into the verb that comes next. In either case, it 
definitely seems that the ki here is accentually dependent on the material 
around it (as was mentioned by Rory and John). I have a confusion as to 
the actual alignment of the pitch contour with the segmental tier in the 
"ki" region, so I can't say more on it without going back and looking at 
more cases (and with different lenghts of nouns and so on, if I can find 
such examples in the other spoken samples).

As for the [N det dem], I didn't find many cases of this in the 
conversation I had recorded. I found a couple of cases, but the 
intonational pattern seems harder to sort out than the [dem N det] or 
simply the [N det] cases. I have one case with (suprisingly) the same 
noun:

     aNpe*tu ki le ,   chaNte*-washte*ya wache*kiyapi  ....
     day     the this    with good heart they pray
     N       det dem

In the opening phrase of this sentence the 2nd syllable of the noun 
"aNpe*tu" has a high pitch peak and one sees a downstepped, gradual 
falling pattern on the ki-le sequence. The whole phrase is pronounced 
together, so there is no pause between the N and the det and there is 
definitely no pause between the det and the dem. That is, ki-le is very 
glued together, and my ear tells me that there is a secondary accent on 
the "le", but if there is one it is a very slight accent (almost invisible 
on the pitch track, which shows a somewhat gradual falling contour over 
the whole ki-le sequence). The /e/ on the demonstrative is lengthened, but 
the speaker has definitely put a phrase boundary after the "le" (which 
I've indicated by the comma above), so I would need different cases, at 
least one without a phrase boundary there and possibly also different 
lengths and accent locations of the N, to say anything more.

Don't know if this illuminates anything, but I'm afraid that's all I have 
for now.

Armik

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
>> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
>> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
>> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
>> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
>
> Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
> certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
> from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
> + V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
> diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
> obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
> the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
> with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.
>
> If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
> N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
> Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
> both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
> resumptive and/or appositive.
>
> I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
> established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
> that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
> it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
> and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
> article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
> the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
> Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
> demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
> I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
> think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
> anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
> structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
> completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
> accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.
>
> I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
> or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
> lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
> It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
> diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
> There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
> common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.
>
> I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
> Catherine!
>


From linguista at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 18:29:46 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:29:46 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887788@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.122946.0600.>

On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
>
> The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and,
> I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never
> recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original
> statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must
> be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding
> the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in
> English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.


Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here, I
would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English translation.
In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is definiteness concord on
adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell non-Semitic-speakers to
think of constructions like

ha+bayt ha+gadol
the+house the+big

as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in the
learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive; they
are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

- Bryan Gordon

"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]]
> or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like
> properties also.
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
>
>
>
>
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
> the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
> the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
> articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
>
> > >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well
> as
> > > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > > construction.
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get
> her
> > to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> > she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> > constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also
> wa?u'
> > s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe
> there
> > is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> > between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> > would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I
> tried
> > nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> > these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> > s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> > between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> > construction in the historical literature.
> >
> > Rory
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/3fc6e8e6/attachment.html>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Thu Feb 23 19:30:08 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:30:08 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <48dd2b470602231029i69b1498i753a891156519457@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.133008.0600.>

Bryan wrote:
> Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here,
I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English
translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

>ha+bayt ha+gadol
>the+house the+big

>as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in
the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive;
they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

That raises an interesting question as to where we draw the line between
apposition and agreement of a modifier with the noun modified.
Indo-European languages have classificatory endings on both nouns and
adjectives that might be analogous to the ha+ in Hebrew, but these are
generally considered modification with concord, not apposition.

Given that ha+bayt ha+gadol is the only way to say "the big house" under
Hebrew rules of morphosyntax, is it necessarily wrong to say that this
grammatical arrangement is apposition?  If the native speaker is actually
thinking in terms that would best translate back into English as "the
house, the big one", wouldn't it be better to call this arrangement
apposition than to subordinate it to the European rule of noun modified by
adjective with concord?

Perhaps one possible test would be: can ha+gadol stand on its own as a
nominal element, meaning "the big one"?

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Feb 23 21:12:51 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:12:51 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.151251.0600.>

I'm aware of article copying on Arabic adjectives, but I don't think there is anything like that operating in Siouan.  It would at least have to be demonstrated.  Modern Omaha does have some strange article use, but it's different from the 19th century variety in this respect.  The common pattern as far as I can tell is DEM N-DET, so the other pattern needs a special translation if it's going to be correctly rendered.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Bryan Gordon
Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 12:29 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives


On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote: 

	The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and, I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.


Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here, I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

ha+bayt ha+gadol
the+house the+big

as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive; they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

- Bryan Gordon



	"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]] or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like properties also.
	
	Bob
	
	________________________________
	
	From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
	Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM 
	To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
	Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
	
	
	
	
	Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
	the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then, 
	the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
	articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
	
	David S. Rood
	Dept. of Linguistics
	Univ. of Colorado
	295 UCB 
	Boulder, CO 80309-0295
	USA
	rood at colorado.edu
	
	On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
	
	> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as 
	> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
	> > construction.
	>
	> David,
	>
	> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her 
	> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
	> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
	> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u' 
	> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
	> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
	> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it 
	> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
	> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
	> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as 
	> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
	> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
	> construction in the historical literature.
	>
	> Rory 
	>
	
	
	
	


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Feb 23 21:23:08 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:23:08 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.152308.0600.>

Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.  

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson
Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 1:30 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives



Bryan wrote:
> Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here,
I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English
translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

>ha+bayt ha+gadol
>the+house the+big

>as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in
the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive;
they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

That raises an interesting question as to where we draw the line between
apposition and agreement of a modifier with the noun modified.
Indo-European languages have classificatory endings on both nouns and
adjectives that might be analogous to the ha+ in Hebrew, but these are
generally considered modification with concord, not apposition.

Given that ha+bayt ha+gadol is the only way to say "the big house" under
Hebrew rules of morphosyntax, is it necessarily wrong to say that this
grammatical arrangement is apposition?  If the native speaker is actually
thinking in terms that would best translate back into English as "the
house, the big one", wouldn't it be better to call this arrangement
apposition than to subordinate it to the European rule of noun modified by
adjective with concord?

Perhaps one possible test would be: can ha+gadol stand on its own as a
nominal element, meaning "the big one"?

Rory


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Feb 23 21:55:36 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:55:36 +0000
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <48dd2b470602231029i69b1498i753a891156519457@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.215536.0000.>

Interesting point about the Hebrew and Arabic
constructions.  I have often referred to this as
'apposition' in Arabic, but as you say it is more
general than apposition in say English and is in fact
the general way of arranging coreferent nouns together
whether we would call the second one an adjective as
in al-bet al-kabir 'the house the big' ie 'the big
house' or where we would call the second a noun as in
al-walad al-shaikh 'the boy who is a shaikh' or 'the
shaikh boy, boy-shaikh'.  The point is in Arabic that
this differs from the other structure, the possessive
or attributive one, where the two are not coreferent
as in walad al-shaikh 'the boy (son) of the shaikh' 

Bruce
 --- Bryan Gordon <linguista at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single
> constituent in Kaw, and,
> > I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in
> Dorsey's day.  And I never
> > recorded anything like that either in the '70's. 
> So I think Rory's original
> > statement that these are "appositives" or
> renewed-mention constructions must
> > be what is responsible for what he got over the
> phone with DEM-DET preceding
> > the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That
> one, the woman", etc. in
> > English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that
> one" is referring to.
> 
> 
> Although apposition is certainly something that
> should be looked at here, I
> would issue a word of caution about using this sort
> of English translation.
> In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
> definiteness concord on
> adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
> non-Semitic-speakers to
> think of constructions like
> 
> ha+bayt ha+gadol
> the+house the+big
> 
> as "the house, the big one." This encourages an
> appositive conception in the
> learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT
> necessarily appositive; they
> are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.
> 
> - Bryan Gordon
> 
> "That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to
> be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]]
> > or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly
> having appositive-like
> > properties also.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of
> ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely
> impossible in Lakota, which is
> > the only one of these languages I know even a
> little about.  But then,
> > the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The
> evolution of the Dhegiha
> > articles must be quite different from that of the
> Lakhota ones.
> >
> > David S. Rood
> > Dept. of Linguistics
> > Univ. of Colorado
> > 295 UCB
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> > USA
> > rood at colorado.edu
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
> >
> > > >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably
> entails pitch changes as well
> > as
> > > > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect
> if this is a two-part
> > > > construction.
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > I was just on the phone with one of our
> speakers.  I couldn't quite get
> > her
> > > to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own,
> but when I suggested it
> > > she enthusiastically said that that sounded even
> better than the
> > > constructions she had offered.  I got her to say
> it for me, and also
> > wa?u'
> > > s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed
> to recall.  I believe
> > there
> > > is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in
> volume and maybe pitch,
> > > between the noun and the following dem-det pair.
>  I was wondering how it
> > > would sound if the noun were not accented on the
> last syllable, so I
> > tried
> > > nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and
> s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> > > these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair
> before the noun, as
> > > s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed
> to be a slight pause
> > > between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have
> ever seen this
> > > construction in the historical literature.
> > >
> > > Rory
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Thu Feb 23 22:06:09 2006
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:06:09 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.160609.0600.>

Ok, I'm going to jump in here, though with some trepidation since I haven't actually read a lot of the messages in this thread.  If I wait till I find time to read them carefully (much less go back and check any data) I'll never get to it.  Where DO you guys get the time?  
 
Anyhow, I can't resist rising to the bait of "strange article use" in Omaha and the notion of article copying/definiteness agreement vs. apposition.  
 
As some of you know, I once did a paper on Omaha constructions like "Ga-akHa nu-akHa" (this-the man-the) or "wa'u-thiNkHe she-thinkHe" (woman-the that-the), with a demonstrative and a noun, each with matching definite article suffixed.  These are fairly common, both in the speech of my consultants and in Dorsey.  Extremely common in the speech of a couple of constultants, who happened to be the most fluent, even Omaha-dominant speakers I recorded, so I don't think it's a semi-speaker effect of any kind.  My memory is that the DEM-art N-art order is considerably more common than the reverse.  Occasionally there are more than 2 parts to the construction, i.e. DEM-art N-art N-art.  The obvious analysis of these is that they are appositive constructions (possibly a hesitation phenomenon, buying time with a DEM while searching for a more specific word??) and this looks particularly likely when one of the parts is a proper name ("She-akHa nuzhiNga-akHa Bill-akHa", i.e. "that boy, Bill").  In my paper I tried to make a case for analyzing them instead as defniteness agreement, with article (optionally) spreading to all parts of a complex DP.  At this point I can't remember what the arguments were, but in any case it's not an entirely straightforward decision in either direction.  If people are interested I could dig it out and try to give some sort of synopsis.  
 
Going back to an earlier part of the thread:   For nominal phrases with both demonstrative and article (or deictic & specificity marker or whatever they are), a 2-tier X-bar with the determiner (aka article aka specificity element) highest seems right to me.  That is, something like John's tree below.  (I've cleaned up the spacing so it lines up right on my screen... hopefully didn't mess it up for everyone else.)
 
            DP
             !
            D'
          /   !
        NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N'
           !
          N
 
This would, as John said, nicely allow for [DEM  N] and [N  DEM] orders while keeping the article last; it also works nicely for allowing the "specificity" feature to spread across the whole phrase in case that turns out to be the right analysis of the Omaha doubled-article constructions above.  :-)  
  
Catherine

>>> rankin at ku.edu 2/23/2006 3:12 PM >>>

I'm aware of article copyingon Arabic adjectives, but I don't think there is anything like that operating inSiouan. It would at least have to be demonstrated. Modern Omaha doeshave some strange article use, but it's different from the 19th century varietyin this respect. The common pattern as far as I can tell is DEM N-DET, sothe other pattern needs a special translation if it's going to be correctlyrendered.

Bob

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/e17f8b9f/attachment.html>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Fri Feb 24 03:08:24 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:08:24 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887799@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.210824.0600.>

Bob wrote:
> Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in
the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these
things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.

Yes, I'd certainly agree with that.  But I think Bryan's example is a fair
analogy to the point we were discussing.  Is the combination N dem-det an
apposition with N and dem-det standing separately as two co-equal nominals,
or does the dem-det modify/restrict/classify the N such that the N is the
sole head of the N dem-det noun phrase?  Or can there be an intermediate
interpretation?  Perhaps it is ambiguous or ambivalent even within the
population of native speakers?

Rory


From linguista at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 03:39:57 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:39:57 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OF931D497E.25896126-ON8625711F.000FC5D5-8625711F.0010197A@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.213957.0600.>

On 2/23/06, Rory M Larson <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
> > Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in
> the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these
> things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.
>
> Yes, I'd certainly agree with that.  But I think Bryan's example is a fair
> analogy to the point we were discussing.  Is the combination N dem-det an
> apposition with N and dem-det standing separately as two co-equal
> nominals,
> or does the dem-det modify/restrict/classify the N such that the N is the
> sole head of the N dem-det noun phrase?  Or can there be an intermediate
> interpretation?  Perhaps it is ambiguous or ambivalent even within the
> population of native speakers?


This is the right question to ask. Although we can never truly rule out
intermediate interpretations entirely in the sphere of how much attention
speakers pay to the distinction, I would say that apposition versus
restriction are more or less in complementary opposition, since they entail
radically different syntactic structures (i.e., two separate NP's as opposed
to one NP properly contained within another).

As far as the Semitic examples are concerned, they certainly can be
appositions as in (1), and the Det-adj constructions can certainly function
as independent NP's as in (2).

1. (apposition - non-restrictive)
bil klinton dibar ?emesh. ha+nashi? ha+maksim lavash xalifa shel ?armani
Bill Clinton spoke last.night. the+president the+charismatic wore suit of
Armani.

2. (restrictive)
shne ?anashim ba?u, ha+?ish ha+gavoa bi+shmone v+ha+guts b+?eser
two men came arrived, the+man the+tall at+eight and+the+short at+ten

But the construction "ha?ish hagavoa" is clearly restrictive, even though it
is not formally (morphosyntactically) distinguished from the apposition
"hanashi? hamaksim." It is, however, probable that there is a considerable
difference in stress and/or intonation (i.e., accenting the restrictive
"hagavoa" while leaving the all-old-information "hanashi? hamaksim"
completely accentless).

Rory
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/ab92f909/attachment.html>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 15:54:25 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:54:25 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <s3fddd8b.078@hermes.wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.085425.0700.>

>  Going back to an earlier part of the thread:  For nominal phrases with
> both demonstrative and article (or deictic & specificity marker or
> whatever they are), a 2-tier X-bar with the determiner (aka article aka
> specificity element) highest seems right to me.  That is, something like
> John's tree below.  (I've cleaned up the spacing so it lines up right on
> my screen... hopefully didn't mess it up for everyone else.)
>
>             DP
>              !
>             D'
>           /   !
>         NP   D
>        / !
>  DEM  N'
>            !
>           N
>  This would, as John said, nicely allow for [DEM N] and [N DEM] orders
> while keeping the article last; it also works nicely for allowing the
> "specificity" feature to spread across the whole phrase in case that
> turns out to be the right analysis of the Omaha doubled-article
> constructions above.  :-)


	The idea of 2 layers of X-bar structure works for Lakota, too, but
the details are very different, since we ALWAYS have the DEM outside the
DET, and the DET cannot occur to the left of the N no matter what.

David


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 15:48:10 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:48:10 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602222243450.8604@cslr.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.084810.0700.>

Thanks, Armik -- it's always good to have concrete data instead of
impressions.  Given what you've said, my theory that the DEM is a
resumptive pronoun is clearly called into question, at least for "le" and
in this expression.  I wonder if "he" would behave differently, since
that's the one that's most often used as a third person pronoun.
	I don't think this is relevant to the Dhegiha discussion, however,
since there are too many differences: the whole article system is
different, and the order dem-det is impossible in Lakota but normal there.
	David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Mirzayan Armik wrote:

>
>   I'm not sure how much this will help, but I thought I'd send just a note
> about the pitch-accent of these constructions in Lakhota as I've seen them
> in some of my analysis.
>
> I can't say anything too conclusive because I was actually concentrating
> on the pitch accents on other parts of intonational phrase when I did
> some work on the subject.
>
> The piece of data I was working with didn't have too many explicit noun
> phrases that had both the dem and the det, but I do remember running into
> just a couple of cases of [dem N det] and [N det dem].
>
> The one Lakhota [dem N det] construction that I remember was:
>
>     le* aNpe*tu ki osni*yelo
>     this  day   the  it's cold
>     dem   N     det
>
> In this clause the "le" has a rather high and broad pitch peak followed by
> a downstepped peak on the 2nd syllable of the noun. It is a bit hard to
> figure out what the "ki" is doing as it is really short, compressed
> between the noun and the following verb. It seems to almost participate in
> somewhat of an upstep into the verb that comes next. In either case, it
> definitely seems that the ki here is accentually dependent on the material
> around it (as was mentioned by Rory and John). I have a confusion as to
> the actual alignment of the pitch contour with the segmental tier in the
> "ki" region, so I can't say more on it without going back and looking at
> more cases (and with different lenghts of nouns and so on, if I can find
> such examples in the other spoken samples).
>
> As for the [N det dem], I didn't find many cases of this in the
> conversation I had recorded. I found a couple of cases, but the
> intonational pattern seems harder to sort out than the [dem N det] or
> simply the [N det] cases. I have one case with (suprisingly) the same
> noun:
>
>      aNpe*tu ki le ,   chaNte*-washte*ya wache*kiyapi  ....
>      day     the this    with good heart they pray
>      N       det dem
>
> In the opening phrase of this sentence the 2nd syllable of the noun
> "aNpe*tu" has a high pitch peak and one sees a downstepped, gradual
> falling pattern on the ki-le sequence. The whole phrase is pronounced
> together, so there is no pause between the N and the det and there is
> definitely no pause between the det and the dem. That is, ki-le is very
> glued together, and my ear tells me that there is a secondary accent on
> the "le", but if there is one it is a very slight accent (almost invisible
> on the pitch track, which shows a somewhat gradual falling contour over
> the whole ki-le sequence). The /e/ on the demonstrative is lengthened, but
> the speaker has definitely put a phrase boundary after the "le" (which
> I've indicated by the comma above), so I would need different cases, at
> least one without a phrase boundary there and possibly also different
> lengths and accent locations of the N, to say anything more.
>
> Don't know if this illuminates anything, but I'm afraid that's all I have
> for now.
>
> Armik
>
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> >> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
> >> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
> >> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
> >> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
> >
> > Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
> > certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
> > from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
> > + V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
> > diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
> > obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
> > the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
> > with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.
> >
> > If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
> > N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
> > Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
> > both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
> > resumptive and/or appositive.
> >
> > I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
> > established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
> > that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
> > it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
> > and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
> > article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
> > the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
> > Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
> > demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
> > I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
> > think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
> > anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
> > structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
> > completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
> > accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.
> >
> > I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
> > or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
> > lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
> > It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
> > diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
> > There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
> > common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.
> >
> > I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
> > Catherine!
> >
>


From mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 21:40:44 2006
From: mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU (Mirzayan Armik)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:40:44 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602240844190.2200@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.144044.0700.>

David, thanks for the clarification.

I should have stated in my email that the content had nothing to 
contribute directly to the Dhegiha discussion! I do realize that the 
article system is different from Lakhota and that the dem-det order is 
impossible in Lakhota. I only thought the information might illuminate a 
way of looking at the Dhegiha pitch-accent in the same types of phrases, 
though maybe others have already done so.

Regarding the Lakhota dem "he", I also wonder if it behaves differently. I 
have only analyzed one token in the same (conversational) data with the N 
det-dem order where the dem is "he", but unfortunately it's overlapped 
speech and I have a hard time hearing it well. I'll look for more in the 
other parts of the data to see if I can indentify any other (clearer) 
ones.

    Armik

>
> Thanks, Armik -- it's always good to have concrete data instead of
> impressions.  Given what you've said, my theory that the DEM is a
> resumptive pronoun is clearly called into question, at least for "le" and
> in this expression.  I wonder if "he" would behave differently, since
> that's the one that's most often used as a third person pronoun.
> 	I don't think this is relevant to the Dhegiha discussion, however,
> since there are too many differences: the whole article system is
> different, and the order dem-det is impossible in Lakota but normal there.
> 	David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Feb 27 22:03:58 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:03:58 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602241429180.6195@cslr.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.150358.0700.>

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Mirzayan Armik wrote:
> I should have stated in my email that the content had nothing to
> contribute directly to the Dhegiha discussion!

It's interesting seeing the data in parallel, though, and I don't think
anyone were confused.  It's interesting to see the Dakota data discussed
in terms of pitch accent, too.

> I do realize that the article system is different from Lakhota and that
> the dem-det order is impossible in Lakhota. I only thought the
> information might illuminate a way of looking at the Dhegiha
> pitch-accent in the same types of phrases, though maybe others have
> already done so.

I think that the whole issue of pitch accent at any level above the word
is an unexplored one.  Even within the word I'm not sure it's been well
explored in those languages where it has been adopted as an explanation.
I've never gone beyond a very impressionistic applicaiton in Omaha.

There are definitely limits to analogizing one language's syntax with
another, as has been pointed out, but one interesting consequence of
thinking of the Dhegiha definite articles historically as secondary
concordial elements co-occurring with a now missing definite marker
analogous to the Dakota definite article is that it tends to explain how
they can co-occur with both the noun and a preceding demonstrative.  If
they are gender markers that occur only with definite NPs, then they can
easily be extended to a preceding demonstrative that has a definite
reference, by analogy with what would happen with an independent
demonstrative, or with one following the NP.  In other words, the Dhegiha
articles replace definite articles functionally, but retain the syntactic
behavior of a predicate.

Indicating a definite element with X(def) and using gen for gender to mark
the location of the article, then given the patterns

dem(def)-gen
N(def) dem-gen

the development

dem N(def)-gen => dem-gen N(def)-gen

is natural, at least if the pattern dem N(def)-gen is at least potentially
analyzable as two NPs in a way that N(def) dem-gen is not.  I think this
would be just the sort of concordial marking that Catherine suggests.

I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 28 00:11:51 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:11:51 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602271429550.18116@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.181151.0600.>

> I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
> seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.

John,

Can you give us a definition of 'focus construction', in contrast to
'apposition', and in relation to singleton NPs?

Thanks!
Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 28 15:18:31 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:18:31 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.091831.0600.>

> I think that the whole issue of pitch accent at any level above the word
is an unexplored one.  Even within the word I'm not sure it's been well
explored in those languages where it has been adopted as an explanation.
I've never gone beyond a very impressionistic applicaiton in Omaha.

I have a grad student in Linguistics working on this in Kaw as a project for a phonology seminar on tone, accent and syllable structure that Jie Zhang is giving.  Hopefully we'll all learn more from it.


> is natural, at least if the pattern dem N(def)-gen is at least potentially
analyzable as two NPs in a way that N(def) dem-gen is not.  I think this
would be just the sort of concordial marking that Catherine suggests.

Catherine's data was interesting for the sheer amount of replication involved.  It was far more than I ever had in Kaw or Quapaw.  It didn't seem to mirror Dorsey's 1890 materials, but of course Dorsey was using a totally different method of elicitation and had to write everything without benefit of recordings.  And he was working in different genres.  So I wonder if Omaha has changed or whether maybe JOD just missed these particular patterns.  

> I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.

Assuming apposition and focus are really completely different things.  My only point in comparison to the Semitic data we were looking at is that the DEM/DET syntactic structures are contrastive in Dhegiha Siouan, whereas in Semitic I wasn't sure that was the case.  There adjs. (nouns, whatever they be) simply require the article if I understood correctly.

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Fri Feb 10 22:44:28 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:44:28 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.164428.0600.>

I'm sitting in on an ethnobotany course this semester, and one of the things that was mentioned was that the Masai and other African tribes who depend almost exclusively on meat and meat products for food mix Acacia bark in with their stew and it has a cholesterol-lowering medicinal effect.  This reminded me of something Mrs. Rowe told me about Kaw cooking.  She said that THEY USED TO PUT THE INNER BARK OF THE ELM TREE IN THEIR COOKING GREASE.  I always figured that they just liked the flavor it imparted, but I'm finding out that it probably had specific and positive medicinal effects.  
 
Have any of the rest of you heard of this habit among other Siouan-speaking peoples?  I suspect Mrs. Rowe was referring to /hiNje $cu$ce/ the "slippery elm", because its inner bark is sort of gooey.  It would also serve as a thickener for meat broth.
 
Bob


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sat Feb 11 00:02:31 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:02:31 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.180231.0600.>

Bob,

I have seen the same thing among Ponca people, but it was many years ago. I
can't recall the name of the inner bark off hand. As I recall, that had a
great many uses (including this horrid tasting tea that could whip any cold
known to man). There was also inner bark from dogwood tree (also having
medicinal qualities) and a few others. If they were boiling big tubs of meat
they would often throw long twists of that bark in there.

Grandma use to cook water lilly roots when she could get them. She claimed
that they had medicinal qualities, but I never ran that one down. They were
a big favorite, but hard to get (the northern variety being preferred).

There were all kinds of other things that old Ponca folks used to call "real
Indian food", but it might be too long to go into here. I have a list of
Ponca names for some of them if that would help you. Unfortunately, not many
cook that way anymore.

Also, I was somewhat amazed to find how many of the names Gilmore had
collected (Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River Region)
were/are still retained.

Tom Leonard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.


I'm sitting in on an ethnobotany course this semester, and one of the things
that was mentioned was that the Masai and other African tribes who depend
almost exclusively on meat and meat products for food mix Acacia bark in
with their stew and it has a cholesterol-lowering medicinal effect.  This
reminded me of something Mrs. Rowe told me about Kaw cooking.  She said that
THEY USED TO PUT THE INNER BARK OF THE ELM TREE IN THEIR COOKING GREASE.  I
always figured that they just liked the flavor it imparted, but I'm finding
out that it probably had specific and positive medicinal effects.

Have any of the rest of you heard of this habit among other Siouan-speaking
peoples?  I suspect Mrs. Rowe was referring to /hiNje $cu$ce/ the "slippery
elm", because its inner bark is sort of gooey.  It would also serve as a
thickener for meat broth.

Bob


From rankin at ku.edu  Sat Feb 11 18:51:38 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:51:38 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.125138.0600.>

> I have seen the same thing among Ponca people, but it was many years ago. I can't recall the name of the inner bark off hand. As I recall, that had a great many uses (including this horrid tasting tea that could whip any cold known to man). 
 
Gilmore (1919) mentions it could be used as a laxative too, like Castor Oil or mineral oil can be today.  But he also says it was used by the Omahas in cooking/boiling meat.  He says they just liked the taste, but it's really interesting that the Dhegiha speakers (and maybe others) and African groups halfway around the world independently discovered that there were health advantages to using the mucosa from inner bark to counter the massive amounts of cholesterol that primarily hunting or cattle-raising peoples ingested.  Nobody knew what "cholesterol" was back then, but they certainly  figured out that you would be healthier if you used that bark with the meat grease/broth.  
 
I had a note from Ryan Red Corn who says the Osages used slippery elm bark the same way.  So we've established that the Omahas, Poncas, Kaws and Osages all used the slippery elm bark in this way.  (The Omaha term given by Gilmore is 'e-zhoN zhide gthigthide [slippery red elm] ).
 
> There was also inner bark from dogwood tree (also having medicinal qualities) and a few others. If they were boiling big tubs of meat they would often throw long twists of that bark in there.

> Grandma use to cook water lilly roots when she could get them. She claimed that they had medicinal qualities, but I never ran that one down. They were a big favorite, but hard to get (the northern variety being preferred).

The Kaws prepared those too, but Mrs. Rowe's granddaughter says she doesn't care for the taste and texture nowadays.  :-)

> There were all kinds of other things that old Ponca folks used to call "real Indian food", but it might be too long to go into here. I have a list of Ponca names for some of them if that would help you. Unfortunately, not many cook that way anymore.
 
I'd really appreciate your sharing the list.  It is fascinating the number of these traditional plant uses had some very special qualities.  The gooey inner bark of the elm, acacia and mimosa trees contain chemicals the botanists call "saponins" that have the cholesterol-reducing property.

> Also, I was somewhat amazed to find how many of the names Gilmore had collected (Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River Region) were/are still retained.

Tom Leonard


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sat Feb 11 20:48:05 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:48:05 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.144805.0600.>

>Gilmore (1919) mentions it could be used as a laxative too, like Castor Oil
or mineral oil can be today.  >The Omaha term given by Gilmore is 'e-zhoN
zhide gthigthide [slippery red elm] ).

"'e-zhoN zhide gthigthide" is interesting. "zhoN" is certainly "wood" and
"zhi'de" is certainly "red". "Slippery", I believe, is "shna" or "shna ha"
in Ponca.

"gthigthide" sort of sounded like "iN'gthe" to me. Interestingly, I called
my mom's younger sister, who did a lot of cooking for large feasts when she
was younger (and whom I've seen use the bark twists). I took notes. I asked
her what "gthigthide" meant. The very first thing she said was "are you
trying to say 'iN'gthe'? - hey, behave yourself!!" (she IS my little mother,
after all). After repeating "gthigthide" she said: "No....that don't sound
right. That bark we used to throw in there...that's "e'zhoN zhi'de". We used
to twist it up and throw it those tubs. Just a little bit. It helps you
digest that meat. Too much meat and all that fry bread.....it'll stop you
up. That bark...well you know...it helps it to go through you better. That's
real old time way. But these young girls today....they don't that." I'll
spare you the rest of the diatribe that followed.

Here's a partial list of some foods. I have another list with plants and
some of their uses, but I need to dig that out.

Beans = hi bthiN'ge
Cabbage = wa'xtha
Carrots = mashtiN'ge watha'te (rabbit meal)
Corn = wataN'zi
 Sweet Corn = wataN'zi ski'the (corn sweet)
 Hominy (in preparation) = wabi'shnu'de
 Hominy (cooked) = wabthu'ga
 Corn mush = washaN'ge, or aNba'gthe (??)

Cucumber = kuku'mi
Onion = mazhaN'xe
Peas = hi bthiN'ge bu'taN (beans - round)
Potato = nu
 Sweet Potato = nu ski'the (potato - sweet)
 Pumpkin = wa'taN
  Green Squash = wa'taN ha shu'ga ha (pumpkin with a thick skin)
  Stripped Squash (Hubbard Squash?) = shu wa'taN thigu'zhe ha
  Any small squash or pumpkin = wa'taN bthaN'ze

Radish = paN'xe zhi'de
Rice = si wani'de (Wild Rice = siN'gthe)
Tomato = wazhi'de
Turnip = nu'gthe

? Foods - Traditional Vegetables

Wild Beans = taN'de hi bthiN'ge
Wild Cabbage (milkweed) = wa'xtha
Wild Cabbage = wa'xtha si taN - or - wa'xtha si taNga (milkweed just prior
to blooming)
Mushrooms = teni'xa ugthe'zhe -or- tenix(stop) ugthe'zhe
Wild Potatoes = taN'de he nu (??)
Water Lilly Roots = tetha'wi

? Foods - Fruits

Apple - she
Orange - she zi (apple - yellow)
Banana - wax'ta sne'de (fruit - long) or te'thawi (old Ponca)
Blackberries = aNgthaNka maN'ge
"Black Hulls" = nasha'maN
Cantaloupe = saka'thide snu snu
Cherries = naN'pa
Grapes = ha zi (skin - yellow)
Possum Grapes = ha zi bthaN'ze
Gooseberries = pe'zi
Lemon (or lime) = she zi nuhi'shki
Mulberries = ma'zi zhu
Peaches = she hi shku'be (apple - hairy)
Pear = she pa taN (apple with a big nose - old Ponca)
Pear = ma'chu (grizzly bear - from "Polar Bear Brand" canned pears)
Plums = kaN'de
Wild Plums = kaNze xa'de (??)
Persimmons = ta'spaN
Strawberries = ba'shte
Watermelon = saka'thide


? Foods - Meat and Wild Game

The general term for meat is tanu'ka.

Antelope = tachu'ge
Badger = xu'ga
Beaver = zha'be
Buffalo = te
Beef = te ska
 Dry Meat = Ta
Meat Soup, or Soup = ta'ni (dry meat - water)
 Ground beef, hamburger = tanu'ka gatu'be
 Meat Gravy (steam fry) = tanu'ka wani'de
 Barbecue = ta uga'ti
Barbecue Soup = ta uga'ti ta'ni

 Half Beef = thi'a maN'saN thi'ha (??)
 Hind Quarter = te zhiN'ga
Dried Meat from Hind Quarter = wa'ga
 Front Quarter = te a (buffalo, or cow - arm)
 Rib Section (for BBQ) = te zhu
 Ribs = te thi'ti
 Backbone meat = te naNka'ta (??)
 Neck bone = te pa'hi
 Intestines = te shi'be
Tripe = tani' xa
Kidneys =te asaN'tasi (??)
Liver = te pi (??)
 Tongue = tathe'ze
Lung = te tha'xi (??)

Chicken = wazhiN'ga, or wazhiN'ga  zhi'de
Deer = tax'ti
Duck = mi'xa
Elk = aN'pa
Goose = mi'xa, or mi'xa taN'ga
Guinea hen = watha'zai
Hog = kuku'si
Moose = pa shtaN'ga
Muskrat = siN sne'de wagi'the
Quail = u'shi wa'the
Rabbit = mashtiN'ge
Jack Rabbit = mashtiNge ska (??)
Cotton-tail Rabbit = ???
Racoon = mi'ka
Sheep = ha xu'de (skin - gray)
Skunk = maN'ga
Squirrel = siN'ga
Ground Squirrel = he'xthiN
 Turkey = zizi'ka


? Foods - Fish and Turtles

Fish = huhu
Bass = hu hu i'taN'ga (fish - big)
Carp = hu btha'ska (fish - flat)
Cat Fish = pu'ze hu hu -or- tu'ze hu hu
Eel = we'sa huhu (snake - fish)
Garr = hu pa si sne'de (fish - nose - long)
Perch = hu btha'ska zhiN'ga (fish - flat - small)
 Trout = hu bthu'ga

 Turtle = ke
 Terrapin = ke gthe'ze (turtle - speckled)
 Soft shelled turtle = ke ha bibi'da
 Diamond Back Turtle = ke ha maNzhi'de
 Snapping Turtle = ke taN'ga

? Foods - Liquids
Water = ni
Milk = maNze' ni (breast water)
Buttermilk = maNze' ni we'gthi
Coffee = maNka sa'be
Tea = xa'de maNka
Soda Pop = gatu'zhi
Grape Juice = ha'zi ni (grape - water)
Orange Juice = she zi ni

? Foods - Breads

Bread = wamu'ske
Fry Bread = washi zhi'gthaN
Top Bread, or Cowboy Bread = wamu'ske ke'thiN
Biscuit = wamu'ske (same as "bread")
Corn bread = wataN'zi wazhi'gtha


? Foods - Miscellaneous

Salt = ni ski'the
Pepper = wiu'gihaN
Sugar = zha'ni
Cane Sugar = zha'ni hi
Flour = wamu'ske xu'de (bread - gray)
Baking Powder, Baking Soda, or Yeast = wenaN'bi'xa  (??)
Corn meal = wathi'tube
Oat Meal = shaN'ge watha'te (horse - meal)
Butter = bawe'gthi
Lard, Oil, or Grease = we'gthi
Syrup = zha'ni snu snu
Honey = kigthaN'xe
Candy = zha'ni bu'ta
Ice Cream = nu'xe bawe'gthi


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Sat Feb 11 22:32:37 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:32:37 -0700
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <001801c62f4c$75af98e0$f5f1e544@tu.ok.cox.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.153237.0700.>

A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu


From rankin at ku.edu  Sun Feb 12 00:07:21 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:07:21 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.180721.0600.>

> A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.

Gilmore (1919:24) included a comment on making ropes/cords:
 

 "The Omaha used to cook the inner bark with buffalo fat in rendering out the tallow.  They considered that the bark gave a desirable flavor to the fat and added a preservative quality, preventing it from becoming rancid.  When the rendering was finished the children always asked for the pieces of cooked bark, which they prized as titbits."  From this I assume the kids liked to chew (eat?) the bark after it had been in the cooking juices.

 

Gilmore adds:  "The inner bark was also used for making ropes and cords."  He doesn't say by whom, but he gives words for 'Ulmus fulva' in Dakota, Omaha-Ponca, Winnebago and Pawnee.

 

Bob


From tmleonard at cox.net  Sun Feb 12 00:15:27 2006
From: tmleonard at cox.net (Tom Leonard)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:15:27 -0600
Subject: Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <SAT.11.FEB.2006.181527.0600.>

> A tidbit from a different culture: I have never heard the Wichitas talk
about using bark this way -- after all, they relied on agricultural
products heavily.  But slippery elm bark (I always assumed the inner bark
that Bob describes) was used for ropes,for binding the grass of the houses
to the frames, and for tying twigs to make brooms.  Bertha said you had to
cut it and then dry it for storage, then wet it again when you wanted to
use it (to make it supple).  Did the folks who cooked with it actually eat
it, or were the chemicals released into the liquid and consumed that way?
It doesn't see to me like something that made strong ropes would make very
good chewing, even if cooked.


I never saw it eaten or chewed by anyone. They used to fish it out of the
tubs before they got ready to serve.

Tom Leonard


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Feb 13 22:44:55 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:44:55 -0700
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE60188775A@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.154455.0700.>

Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels?  I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature.  I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative.  I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.


From okibjonathan at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 14 02:34:42 2006
From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:34:42 -0800
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602131539430.18499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.183442.0800.>

  Taken from: http://www.wholehealthmd.com/refshelf/substances_view/1,1525,10056,00.html     "Well before the first European settlers arrived in North America, Native American tribes had discovered that by scraping away the rough outer bark of the majestic slippery elm tree (Ulmus rubra), they could uncover a remarkable healing substance in the inner bark. They beat the bark into a powder and added water to create a "slippery" concoction ideal for soothing toothaches, healing scrapes, and dispelling constipation.   Later, surgeons in the American Revolution turned to this wilderness remedy to treat gunshot wounds. During the same period, a wholesome and nutritious broth made from the bark was fed to infants and older people."     "Long recognized by health authorities in the United States as an effective medicine, slippery elm bark presently has the approval of the Food and Drug Administration as a nonprescription demulcent (soothing agent) that can be taken internally. Vario
 us
 sources refer to this classic North American herb as American elm, Indian elm, moose elm, red elm, and sweet elm. Don't get confused by the names: Just make sure any product that you purchase actually contains the pale inner bark of Ulmus rubra Muhl (once also known as Ulmus fulva Michx)." 

     Health Benefits     "The popularity of slippery elm bark has endured, no doubt, because it works so well for coating and soothing irritated or inflamed mucous membranes. This is the work of an ingredient in the inner bark called mucilage, a gummy, gel-like substance that when ingested forms a protective layer along the throat, digestive tract, and other areas. Astringent compounds in the herb called tannins help tighten and constrict the tissue.   For the same reasons, salves and ointments containing slippery elm have long been popular for coating well-cleaned minor wounds and burns to protect them from further injury...."

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:

  Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels? I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature. I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative. I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.




Be a friend...
Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,
go to:   http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org
 































__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060213/c9f56649/attachment.htm>

From okibjonathan at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 14 03:16:16 2006
From: okibjonathan at yahoo.com (Jonathan Holmes)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:16:16 -0800
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning.
Message-ID: <MON.13.FEB.2006.191616.0800.>

Howdy,
  A friend of mine was given the following Lakota words with a general interpretation as follows:
   
  "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.  
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.  
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape." 
   
  "Lakota women think carefully.
  Our children are raised by you.
  The people rely on you."
   
  However, I realize that this is not the literal translation. I'm not even sure all the words are spelled correctly. Could someone help in distiguishing the difference between what the implied meaning is and what it actually says in literal translation?
   
  Any help would be appreciated.
  Thanks,
  Jonathan
   
  
 


Be a friend...
Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,
go to:   http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org
 































		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060213/859beb76/attachment.htm>

From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de  Tue Feb 14 09:20:21 2006
From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:20:21 +0100
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
Message-ID: <TUE.14.FEB.2006.102021.0100.>

"Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye. 
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya. 
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
 
"Lakota women think carefully.
Our children are raised by you.
The people rely on you."


At least the first line makes sense and seems to be translated quite 
literally:

lakxo'ta wiN'yaN kiN nag^'ksapa ye

nag^i' - soul spirit
ksa'pA - (to be) wise, prudent
nag^i'ksapA - Buechel: "elated over one's fulfilled preditions"
ye - female enclitic for commands etc.

hence about: Lakota woman (sg.!) be proud...!

2nd line:

niye' uN - by you
wichiN'ca - a girl

3rd line:

oya'ate kiN - the people
haN'yaN ?, (haNyaN'kheci - tomorrow)
wachi' - to dance
wachi'yA - to make dance(?)
so maybe wach'iniya pi ye (wachi'niya pe)???
(the people will/should make you dance)???

My poor two cents


Alfred


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 14 15:09:04 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:09:04 -0600
Subject: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.
Message-ID: <TUE.14.FEB.2006.090904.0600.>

Botanists have tested the theory with the Acacia and it seems to have some validity.  It's possible that the mucus just coats the stomach and intestinal lining and prevents absorption of cholesterol.  I'm not an expert, but it's in our textbook (so naturally it must be true).    :-)
 
I'm sure Lipitor, etc. is a better deal.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E
Sent: Mon 2/13/2006 4:44 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Question about Some Siouan cooking habits.



Not to be awkward, but before I go out and start chewing on the
neighboring elms, has it been established by testing that accacia (or
slippery elm) has any actual medicinal value and that it specifically
affects cholesterol levels?  I'm thinking about the Echinacea dispute and
some others of a similar nature.  I think we can take it as read that
slippery elm can be a laxative.  I think I've heard it mentioned as a folk
rememdy in non-Native American contexts, too.


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 20 16:38:51 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:38:51 +0000
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
In-Reply-To: <43F1A0D5.6060109@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.163851.0000.>

Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
translated.
The second line seems to be 
niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
probably "because of you, or for your sake or through
you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each other".
Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
wachiNiyaNpe
"the people rely on you" is as translated from
wachiNyaN "to rely on"
Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
"the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable

Bruce

--- "Alfred W. T?ting" <ti at fa-kuan.muc.de> wrote:

> "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye. 
> Niye on etanyan wici caka caya. 
> Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
>  
> "Lakota women think carefully.
> Our children are raised by you.
> The people rely on you."
> 
> 
> At least the first line makes sense and seems to be
> translated quite 
> literally:
> 
> lakxo'ta wiN'yaN kiN nag^'ksapa ye
> 
> nag^i' - soul spirit
> ksa'pA - (to be) wise, prudent
> nag^i'ksapA - Buechel: "elated over one's fulfilled
> preditions"
> ye - female enclitic for commands etc.
> 
> hence about: Lakota woman (sg.!) be proud...!
> 
> 2nd line:
> 
> niye' uN - by you
> wichiN'ca - a girl
> 
> 3rd line:
> 
> oya'ate kiN - the people
> haN'yaN ?, (haNyaN'kheci - tomorrow)
> wachi' - to dance
> wachi'yA - to make dance(?)
> so maybe wach'iniya pi ye (wachi'niya pe)???
> (the people will/should make you dance)???
> 
> My poor two cents
> 
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


From jpboyle at uchicago.edu  Mon Feb 20 18:55:55 2006
From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:55:55 -1100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.075555.1100.>

Hi All,

I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a 
demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has looked at these besides 
Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel obligated to reply to this e-mail 
anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:

Demonstrative Noun-Determiner

I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has anyone 
thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X?bar 
framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and 
an NP complement (as in 1)?

1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]

	    DP
            / !
  DemP   D?
	    /  !
         NP  D

This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume, right?

Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP complement 
(as in 2)?

2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]

	  DemP
              !
          Dem?
            /  !
     Dem  DP
	        !
                D?
               / !
            NP D

This structure would be both right branching and left branching (possible but 
not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either analysis?

Thanks

John Boyle


From linguista at gmail.com  Mon Feb 20 19:15:59 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.131559.0600.>

Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation "demonstrative" in general. It
seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity and the syntactic
behaviour of determiners under the same category - which is clearly NOT
appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan deictics don't c-command
D at all, but are contained within NP?

- Bryan Gordon

On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu <jpboyle at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a
> demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has looked at these besides
> Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel obligated to reply to this
> e-mail
> anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
> I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has
> anyone
> thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X'bar
> framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC
> and
> an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
> 1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>             DP
>             / !
>   DemP   D'
>             /  !
>          NP  D
>
> This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume,
> right?
>
> Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP
> complement
> (as in 2)?
>
> 2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>           DemP
>               !
>           Dem'
>             /  !
>      Dem  DP
>                 !
>                 D'
>                / !
>             NP D
>
> This structure would be both right branching and left branching (possible
> but
> not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either analysis?
>
> Thanks
>
> John Boyle
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060220/8845801c/attachment.htm>

From jfu at centrum.cz  Mon Feb 20 19:30:29 2006
From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:30:29 +0100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.203029.0100.>

> jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> 
> anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> 
> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner


Lakota allows two structures:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner


Jan


From ti at fa-kuan.muc.de  Mon Feb 20 18:49:28 2006
From: ti at fa-kuan.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Alfred_W=2E_T=FCting=22?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:49:28 +0100
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.194928.0100.>

"Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.
Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.
Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."

"Lakota women think carefully.
Our children are raised by you.
The people rely on you."


 > Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
translated.
The second line seems to be
niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
probably "because of you, or for your sake or through
you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each other".
Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
wachiNiyaNpe <<


Thanks Bruce, this makes a lot of sense (icha'g^A - to spring up. grow, 
as grass, a child etc.; to become, as a man B.). I obviously was led 
astray by the translation 'our children': wishful thinking!
Yet, there's no way to 'wici caka caya' ;((
"Make them (the people) grow/increase through you!"


"the people rely on you" is as translated from wachiNyaN "to rely on"
Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
"the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable <<


Yes, wachiN'yaN -> wachiNniyaN pi ye -> wachiNniyaN pe
depend upon (you) makes sense.
How would you translate *kinhaN' here? And the 'pi ye -> pe'?? if/when?

Best regards

Alfred


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 20 19:55:14 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:55:14 +0000
Subject: Implied vs literal meaning
In-Reply-To: <43FA0F38.8080002@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.195514.0000.>

Hi Alfred
The kiNhaN is an alternative to kiN or ki meaning
'the' .  It may be that kiNhaNyaN is a possible form
in songs.  While the -pe would be the plural -pi plus
the feminine sentence final marker -ye giving -pe.  If
it was spoken by a man it would be -pelo.  
Bruce
--- "Alfred W. T?ting" <ti at fa-kuan.muc.de> wrote:

> "Lakota wiyan kin nagi ksapa ye.
> Niye on etanyan wici caka caya.
> Oyate kin han yan waci niyape."
> 
> "Lakota women think carefully.
> Our children are raised by you.
> The people rely on you."
> 
> 
>  > Yes i sort of agree with Alfred
> Lakhota wiNyaN kiN nag^i ksapa ye makes sense as
> translated.
> The second line seems to be
> niye uN etaNhaN wichichag^a ye
> probably "because of you, or for your sake or
> through
> you they (the people) grow or increase".  wichicag^a
> is from ichag^a "to grow" and usually wichicag^a or
> wichoicag^a means "the generations follow each
> other".
> Oyate kinhan (yan) wachiNniyape or more probably
> wachiNiyaNpe <<
> 
> 
> Thanks Bruce, this makes a lot of sense (icha'g^A -
> to spring up. grow, 
> as grass, a child etc.; to become, as a man B.). I
> obviously was led 
> astray by the translation 'our children': wishful
> thinking!
> Yet, there's no way to 'wici caka caya' ;((
> "Make them (the people) grow/increase through you!"
> 
> 
> "the people rely on you" is as translated from
> wachiNyaN "to rely on"
> Oyate kiNhaNyaN seems to be a slip for Oyate kiNhaN
> "the people" or perhaps the syllable -yaN came on in
> singing it ie as an extra meaningless syllable <<
> 
> 
> Yes, wachiN'yaN -> wachiNniyaN pi ye -> wachiNniyaN
> pe
> depend upon (you) makes sense.
> How would you translate *kinhaN' here? And the 'pi
> ye -> pe'?? if/when?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


From jpboyle at uchicago.edu  Mon Feb 20 20:45:02 2006
From: jpboyle at uchicago.edu (John Boyle)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:45:02 -1100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.094502.1100.>

Thanks Bryan.  I?m not really sure that demonstrative is the right name for these 
things to either. Given what Jan said about Lakota being able to have both:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner

we may want to assume your right and the structure is:

	 DP
	   !
	   D?
	 /   !
       NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N?
           !
           N

Where DEM can either proceed or follow N.  Thus, it would c-command N but 
not D. Would this give us a better analysis?  Jan, what is the difference between 
the word orders in (1) and (2)?

Thanks,

John Boyle

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
>From: "Bryan Gordon" <linguista at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives  
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>
>   Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation
>   "demonstrative" in general. It
>   seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity
>   and the syntactic
>   behaviour of determiners under the same category -
>   which is clearly NOT
>   appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan
>   deictics don't c-command
>   D at all, but are contained within NP?
>
>   - Bryan Gordon
>
>   On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu
>   <jpboyle at uchicago.edu > wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a
>     determiner and a
>     demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has
>     looked at these besides
>     Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel
>     obligated to reply to this e-mail
>     anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
>     Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>     I think this is true for other Siouan languages as
>     well, correct? Has anyone
>     thought about how to analyze these constructions
>     (specifically in an X'bar
>     framework)?  Are they DPs that have a
>     demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
>     an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
>     1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>                 DP
>                 / !
>       DemP   D'
>                 /  !
>              NP  D
>
>     This would make it all left branching, which is
>     what we would assume, right?
>
>     Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that
>     then take an NP complement
>     (as in 2)?
>
>     2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>               DemP
>                   !
>               Dem'
>                 /  !
>          Dem  DP
>                     !
>                     D'
>                    / !
>                 NP D
>
>     This structure would be both right branching and
>     left branching (possible but
>     not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either
>     analysis?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     John Boyle


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Feb 20 21:04:58 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:04:58 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <001301c63654$2a8fd5a0$0201a8c0@ullrichnet>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.140458.0700.>

I have thought about this a little, but more from the semantic angle than
the syntactic one.  I think that in Lakota the he/le/ka set marks
specificity rather than (or in addition to) deixis, while the "ki/waN'
particles mark definiteness in the sense of old information/uniqueness.
That is why the head of a relative clause is usually marked with both the
INDEFINITE article and a demonstrative.  To say something like "the boy
who saw the horses told us about them" you need the equivalent of 'there
was a certain boy; that boy saw the horses;  he told us about them'.  In
Lak. "[[[[boy a] that] horses saw] the][ he.told.us"].
	To me that implies TWO layers of phrase structure, a DP headed by
he/le/ka, and a specificity phrase headed by ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN etc.
	And that's why the "ki" is always postposed, but the "he" set can
either precede the N or follow N+ki.
	There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem looks as
if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
"the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
intuition, however.
	Best,
	David


David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:

>
>
> > jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> >
> > anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> >
> > Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>
> Lakota allows two structures:
>
> 1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
>
> 2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner
>
>
> Jan
>
>
>
>


From jfu at centrum.cz  Mon Feb 20 21:06:01 2006
From: jfu at centrum.cz (Jan F. Ullrich)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:01 +0100
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <f2c6678c.8db8641b.81c0b00@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.220601.0100.>

Sorry John, I copy&pasted the word into a wrong order. The two structures
are:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
 
2) Noun Determiner Demonstrative    (not Noun Demonstrative Determiner]


> Jan, what is 
> the difference between 
> the word orders in (1) and (2)?

To my knowledge they both have the same meaning.
It has been my impression that construction (2) is more frequent or more
prefered by speakers than (1), but I might be wrong. My text corpus hasn't
been fully tagged in this regard to analyze the frequency at this point.
But I am quite certain that the two constructions are fully interchangeable.
If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Jan


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Mon Feb 20 21:16:24 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:16:24 -0700
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602201234520.13731@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.141624.0700.>

John,
	I got my layers backwards in the previous message.  The highest
phrase should be the specificity phrase, with he/le/ka (traditionally the
demonstratives) as its head; the comp of that would then be a DP with the
article as its head; and the NP would be inside that.  We need to invent a
name that doesn't sound so much like "specifier" for "specificity.
	Some evidence:

	N+ article is fixed word order; DP + specificity can have the
particle either before or after the phrase (but I don't think it's free
variation)

	the specificity particle (a.k.a. demonstrative) can substitute for
the whole construction in a pronoun-like way.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:

>
> I have thought about this a little, but more from the semantic angle than
> the syntactic one.  I think that in Lakota the he/le/ka set marks
> specificity rather than (or in addition to) deixis, while the "ki/waN'
> particles mark definiteness in the sense of old information/uniqueness.
> That is why the head of a relative clause is usually marked with both the
> INDEFINITE article and a demonstrative.  To say something like "the boy
> who saw the horses told us about them" you need the equivalent of 'there
> was a certain boy; that boy saw the horses;  he told us about them'.  In
> Lak. "[[[[boy a] that] horses saw] the][ he.told.us"].
> 	To me that implies TWO layers of phrase structure, a DP headed by
> he/le/ka, and a specificity phrase headed by ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN etc.
> 	And that's why the "ki" is always postposed, but the "he" set can
> either precede the N or follow N+ki.
> 	There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem looks as
> if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> intuition, however.
> 	Best,
> 	David
>
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > jpboyle at uchicago.edu
> > >
> > > anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
> > >
> > > Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
> >
> >
> > Lakota allows two structures:
> >
> > 1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner
> >
> > 2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner
> >
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 00:04:44 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:04:44 -0600
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602201411450.13731@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.180444.0600.>

David,

This is a very interesting idea you are raising, but I wonder if you could
clarify it a little by offering interlinear example sentences, with
bracketted clauses labeled.

If I am following you correctly, you propose two grammatical categories of
functional morphemes that qualify or constrain noun phrases in Lakhota.
Category 1 is the set of 'specificity' markers (he/le/ka), which have also
been called "demonstratives".  Category 2 is the set of 'definiteness'
markers (ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN, etc.), some of which  may also be called
"articles".

To make a sentence conveying the information "The boy who saw the horses
told us about them", three assertions are implied:

1. There was a certain boy;

2. He saw the horses;

3. He told us about them.

In Lakhota, this works out to something like:

  Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw]  ki  [he.told.us].
  Boy       a   that horses         he.saw.them the  he.told.us.

(My Lakhota, of course, is rusty!  Please correct!)

The article/definiteness-marker (waN, ki) ties tightly to the end of the
preceding material to wrap it up into a noun phrase.

  [[Hoks^i'la] waN]
  [A [boy]]

  [[Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw] ]  ki]
  [The [boy who saw the horses]]

Its order is fixed.

The demonstrative/specificity-marker (he) is more loose in where it
appears.  It can function either as a noun modifier (like Japanese sono) or
as a representative of the noun phrase itself (Japanese sore).  In this
respect, it is bi-functional, like the English word 'that'.  ("Did you see
that horse?" vs. "Did you see that?")

In the construction above, the function of the demonstrative he is
arguable.  There are two possibilities:

1. It modifies the preceding NP as "that (newly introduced) boy".

2. It is a stand-alone noun representative placed in apposition to the
preceding NP as "A boy, he saw the horses..."

>            There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem
looks as
> if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> intuition, however.

That would fit with possibility 2.  I have the same intuition, both about
Lakhota he and OP e.  I think the "resumptive pronoun" construction may be
a common grammatical feature in these languages.

Is the above discussion a fair paraphrase of your argument?

Best,
Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 03:54:04 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:54:04 -0700
Subject: DPs: I got it backwards
In-Reply-To: <OFA3963324.C672C619-ON8625711B.007E5097-8625711B.00832092@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.20.FEB.2006.205404.0700.>

Hi, Rory,
	It's flattering to be taken so seriously.  I'll try to respond to
your comments below.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> David,
>
> If I am following you correctly, you propose two grammatical categories of
> functional morphemes that qualify or constrain noun phrases in Lakhota.
> Category 1 is the set of 'specificity' markers (he/le/ka), which have also
> been called "demonstratives".  Category 2 is the set of 'definiteness'
> markers (ki/waN/cha/eya/etaN, etc.), some of which  may also be called
> "articles".

	I tend to call all of the items in Category 2 "articles". For
those who don't know the Lakota details, ki is definited and everything
else is indefinite; the choice depends on the number and count/mass
category of the noun and the realis/irrealis context of the NP; "cha" is
an idefinite article used only on clauses.


>
> To make a sentence conveying the information "The boy who saw the horses
> told us about them", three assertions are implied:
>
> 1. There was a certain boy;
>
> 2. He saw the horses;
>
> 3. He told us about them.
>
> In Lakhota, this works out to something like:
>
>   Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw]  ki  [he.told.us].
>   Boy       a   that horses         he.saw.them the  he.told.us.
>
> (My Lakhota, of course, is rusty!  Please correct!)
>

	The is exactly right. 'Saw them' would be waNwichayaNke.  If the
sentence were 'A boy who saw the horses told us about them', the "ki"
would be replaced by "cha".  So the article at the end of the clause
indicates the definiteness status of the head of the clause.


> The article/definiteness-marker (waN, ki) ties tightly to the end of the
> preceding material to wrap it up into a noun phrase.
>
>   [[Hoks^i'la] waN]
>   [A [boy]]
>
>   [[Hoks^i'la waN he   s^uN'kawakHaN' wic^a[saw] ]  ki]
>   [The [boy who saw the horses]]
>
> Its order is fixed.
>
	Yes.  Perhaps a little more literally, you could try the
paraphrase:

	[the [a certain boy saw the horses]]


> The demonstrative/specificity-marker (he) is more loose in where it
> appears.  It can function either as a noun modifier (like Japanese sono) or
> as a representative of the noun phrase itself (Japanese sore).  In this
> respect, it is bi-functional, like the English word 'that'.  ("Did you see
> that horse?" vs. "Did you see that?")

	This is true, but not in the relative clause construction just
cited as an example.  So in simple noun phrases you could say

	He hoks^ila ki 'that boy'

or 	Hoks^ila ki he 'that boy' or 'the boy, he'

and it's also possible to say just "hoks^ila he" for 'that boy'.  I don't
know the functionarl difference between using or omittingthe "ki", but you
cannot omit it if you start with "He".

>
> In the construction above, the function of the demonstrative he is
> arguable.  There are two possibilities:
>
> 1. It modifies the preceding NP as "that (newly introduced) boy".
>
> 2. It is a stand-alone noun representative placed in apposition to the
> preceding NP as "A boy, he saw the horses..."

Actually, if by "the construction above" you mean the relative clause
construction, I don't think either of these is true.  I would argue that
the "he" functions to mark the 'boy' as particular or specific, although
as yet unidentified or indefinited (signalled by waN) IN THIS
CONSTRUCTION, NOT IN GENERAL. In the relative clause construction,
both the waN and the he modify the preceding N; the pronoun reading
seems to me to be excluded.  But I'm not sure about this.
	This is where I get the idea that "ki/waN"  and "he/le" indicate
definiteness and specificity separately; I try to reflect "specific" by
using the English word 'certain".  The two choices you just gave would be
available to regular NPs of the form N ki he.
>
> >            There are also a lot of cases where the sequence N+ki+dem
> looks as
> > if the "dem" were really some kind of resumptive pronoun, kind of like
> > "the boy, he told us about it".  I have no solid evidence for that
> > intuition, however.
>
> That would fit with possibility 2.  I have the same intuition, both about
> Lakhota he and OP e.  I think the "resumptive pronoun" construction may be
> a common grammatical feature in these languages.
>
> Is the above discussion a fair paraphrase of your argument?

	Very much so, and very clearly described.


>
> Best,
> Rory
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 19:24:22 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:24:22 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.132422.0600.>

That would be my guess too.  Bob
 
> In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
definitely distinct words.
>
> Bob

Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
or resumptive pronoun relationship.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 19:44:33 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:44:33 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602210920300.11169@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.134433.0600.>

> Rory,
>            Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
> dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
>            David

That's a good question, to which I wish I had a better answer.  The N
dem-det construction occurs occasionally in the 19th century historical
literature, and I'm sure our speakers have not objected to constructions
using it, but off the top of my head I can't recall them ever using it
spontaneously.  N dem-det may be a device for packing information into
complex sentences, which do not seem to be much used anymore, at least by
our speakers.

What I think I can say is that in both N-det and dem-det constructions, the
first element is sharply accented, with the -det very de-accented and
almost swallowed by the preceding element, as it were.  The relationship of
-det to its preceding element is apparently very tight.

((Thinking about it a little bit more, perhaps I do recall the intonational
pattern of some speaker-originated N dem-det constructions, but I'd like to
make what I say very tentative until I can confirm it.  I THINK I have
heard such phrases as "Nu' s^e'akHa" or "Wa?u' s^e'dhiNkHe", in which there
seems to be a tiny bit of dead space, or prolongation of the accented final
vowel, at the end of the noun before the demonstrative, which itself is
sharply accented as usual.  The effect might be like putting a comma after
the noun.  Again, don't take this impression of mine too seriously yet.
I'll aim to keep this question in mind in future sessions with our
speakers.))

Perhaps other Dhegihanists can weigh in on this?

Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 19:46:17 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:46:17 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OF5D249F86.3D512D22-ON8625711C.0068FD37-8625711C.006B4E5F@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.124617.0700.>

 The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
construction.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> > Rory,
> >            Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
> > dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
> >            David
>
> That's a good question, to which I wish I had a better answer.  The N
> dem-det construction occurs occasionally in the 19th century historical
> literature, and I'm sure our speakers have not objected to constructions
> using it, but off the top of my head I can't recall them ever using it
> spontaneously.  N dem-det may be a device for packing information into
> complex sentences, which do not seem to be much used anymore, at least by
> our speakers.
>
> What I think I can say is that in both N-det and dem-det constructions, the
> first element is sharply accented, with the -det very de-accented and
> almost swallowed by the preceding element, as it were.  The relationship of
> -det to its preceding element is apparently very tight.
>
> ((Thinking about it a little bit more, perhaps I do recall the intonational
> pattern of some speaker-originated N dem-det constructions, but I'd like to
> make what I say very tentative until I can confirm it.  I THINK I have
> heard such phrases as "Nu' s^e'akHa" or "Wa?u' s^e'dhiNkHe", in which there
> seems to be a tiny bit of dead space, or prolongation of the accented final
> vowel, at the end of the noun before the demonstrative, which itself is
> sharply accented as usual.  The effect might be like putting a comma after
> the noun.  Again, don't take this impression of mine too seriously yet.
> I'll aim to keep this question in mind in future sessions with our
> speakers.))
>
> Perhaps other Dhegihanists can weigh in on this?
>
> Rory
>


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Tue Feb 21 16:21:08 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:21:08 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OFB158B55A.846D867B-ON8625711C.0056A249-8625711C.00563DD5@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.092108.0700.>

Rory,
	Are there any intonational clues, e.g. a separation of N from
dem-det that doesn't occur with n-det alone?
	David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> > Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
> >
> > DEM N - DET             and
> > N DEM-DET
> >
> > In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
> single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
> they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
> definitely distinct words.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
> of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
> or resumptive pronoun relationship.
>
> Rory
>


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 15:05:34 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:05:34 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.090534.0600.>

In that case Dhegiha is a bit different.  The order I gave in my recent post is the correct one.  I don't think the structures are interchangeable.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Jan F. Ullrich
Sent: Mon 2/20/2006 3:06 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives




Sorry John, I copy&pasted the word into a wrong order. The two structures
are:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Determiner Demonstrative    (not Noun Demonstrative Determiner]


> Jan, what is
> the difference between
> the word orders in (1) and (2)?

To my knowledge they both have the same meaning.
It has been my impression that construction (2) is more frequent or more
prefered by speakers than (1), but I might be wrong. My text corpus hasn't
been fully tagged in this regard to analyze the frequency at this point.
But I am quite certain that the two constructions are fully interchangeable.
If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Jan


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 21 14:59:00 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:59:00 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.085900.0600.>

Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
 
DEM N - DET             and
N DEM-DET
 
In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are definitely distinct words.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of jpboyle at uchicago.edu
Sent: Mon 2/20/2006 2:45 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives



Thanks Bryan.  I'm not really sure that demonstrative is the right name for these
things to either. Given what Jan said about Lakota being able to have both:

1) Demonstrative Noun Determiner

2) Noun Demonstrative Determiner

we may want to assume your right and the structure is:

         DP
           !
           D'
         /   !
       NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N'
           !
           N

Where DEM can either proceed or follow N.  Thus, it would c-command N but
not D. Would this give us a better analysis?  Jan, what is the difference between
the word orders in (1) and (2)?

Thanks,

John Boyle

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:59 -0600
>From: "Bryan Gordon" <linguista at gmail.com> 
>Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives 
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>
>   Personally, I'm sceptical of the designation
>   "demonstrative" in general. It
>   seems to be used to ascribe both deictic capacity
>   and the syntactic
>   behaviour of determiners under the same category -
>   which is clearly NOT
>   appropriate for Siouan. Is it possible that Siouan
>   deictics don't c-command
>   D at all, but are contained within NP?
>
>   - Bryan Gordon
>
>   On 2/20/06, jpboyle at uchicago.edu
>   <jpboyle at uchicago.edu > wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a
>     determiner and a
>     demonstrative.  I was wondering if anyone else has
>     looked at these besides
>     Randy and Catherine (who should of course feel
>     obligated to reply to this e-mail
>     anyway).  In Missouri Valley the structure is:
>
>     Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
>     I think this is true for other Siouan languages as
>     well, correct? Has anyone
>     thought about how to analyze these constructions
>     (specifically in an X'bar
>     framework)?  Are they DPs that have a
>     demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
>     an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
>     1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]
>
>                 DP
>                 / !
>       DemP   D'
>                 /  !
>              NP  D
>
>     This would make it all left branching, which is
>     what we would assume, right?
>
>     Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that
>     then take an NP complement
>     (as in 2)?
>
>     2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]
>
>               DemP
>                   !
>               Dem'
>                 /  !
>          Dem  DP
>                     !
>                     D'
>                    / !
>                 NP D
>
>     This structure would be both right branching and
>     left branching (possible but
>     not as pretty).  Is there any evidence for either
>     analysis?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     John Boyle


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 15:54:28 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:54:28 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887782@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.095428.0600.>

> Dhegiha languages also permit both patterns:
>
> DEM N - DET             and
> N DEM-DET
>
> In the second instance the determiner bonds to the demonstrative as a
single phonological word.  Ye-akha, $e-akha, etc. so I've always asssumed
they are rather tightly bound syntactically.  The preposed DEMs are
definitely distinct words.
>
> Bob

Yes.  And DEM-DET often stands alone without any preceding noun, as a sort
of complex pronoun.  I wonder if the N DEM-DET pattern isn't an appositive
or resumptive pronoun relationship.

Rory


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 21 23:32:20 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:32:20 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211245340.18376@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.173220.0600.>

>  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> construction.

David,

I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
construction in the historical literature.

Rory


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Wed Feb 22 00:21:50 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:21:50 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OFA037A889.79376FE8-ON8625711C.007F8384-8625711C.008027B3@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.172150.0700.>

Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > construction.
>
> David,
>
> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> construction in the historical literature.
>
> Rory
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 07:41:52 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:41:52 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211720440.2128@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.004152.0700.>

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
+ V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.

If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
resumptive and/or appositive.

I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.

I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.

I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
Catherine!


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 07:56:40 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:56:40 -0700
Subject: Dakota ki(N)haN, k?uN, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602211720440.2128@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.005640.0700.>

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
> the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
> the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
> articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

Harking back to Bruce's recent comments I wonder if kiNhaN might fit in
some way into the pattern of kiN (ki in Lakota) vs. k?uN.  Bob usually
explains k?uN as involving something like kiN + uN Perfect-Aux or *ruN
PAST, I think.  Could kihaN be a continuative variant?  Is there a
ki(N)he?  I've noticed that reflexives of *rhe tend to alternate with
*rhaN in each language, cf. OP =the 'the upright inanimate' vs. thaN 'the
standing animate obviative'.  I think there's a j^e ~ j^aN pair in
Winnebago, too.

I sometimes wonder if certain Dhegiha forms with *-ki might not have a
petrified reflex of *kiN 'definite'.  The most common examples are forms
comparable to Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi 'watermonster' vs. wakkaNda 'God',
but I have seen at least one more, I think.  A slight complication is that
I'm not sure whether either wakkaNda itself or wakkaNdagi (or both) are
most plausible in OP (and Dhegiha generally) as inherited forms or as
borrowings.  Probably all the Dhegiha forms have to be considered as a
set.  In any event, this is an irregular, ill-explained area of Dhegiha
morphology, and an area in which loans might be expected.  I don't
remember at the moment if (?) wakkaN per se is attested.  The usual
equivalent of Dakotan wakhaN (which would be a good cognate of OP (?)
wakkaN) is xube.


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Wed Feb 22 08:18:46 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:18:46 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <6c8f9e0a.8dae66cc.821f100@m4500-01.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.011846.0700.>

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 jpboyle at uchicago.edu wrote:
> I am just looking at noun phrases that have both a determiner and a
> demonstrative.

> Demonstrative Noun-Determiner
>
> I think this is true for other Siouan languages as well, correct? Has anyone
> thought about how to analyze these constructions (specifically in an X?bar
> framework)?  Are they DPs that have a demonstrative phrase (DemP) in SPEC and
> an NP complement (as in 1)?
>
> 1) [[Dem P [NP ]]DP]

     [ [DemP [ NP ] ] DP]   right?

> This would make it all left branching, which is what we would assume, right?

> Or are they DemPs that take a DP Complement that then take an NP complement
> (as in 2)?
>
> 2 [Dem P [[NP DP]]]

    [ DemP [ [ NP DP ] ] ]  right?

Not to forget where this started, if I understood David and Rory, and if I
am not to X-Bar impaired to be useful, I make it the first.  Forms like Dh
N dem=det and Da N=det dem represent two successive DemP's.

Is it quite right to say DemP and DP in these examples?  Isn't it more
like DetP => [ [ DemP ] Det ] and DemP => [Dem [ NP ] ]?

I don't quite see how to say that in Dh Dem alone is OK, and NP alone, but
not Det alone:  it has to be NP=Det or Dem=Det.  I think in Dakotan it is
Dem or NP alone is OK, not not Det:  it has to be NP=Det.


From rankin at ku.edu  Wed Feb 22 21:49:40 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:49:40 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.154940.0600.>

The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and, I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.  
 
"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]] or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like properties also.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives




Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:

> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as
> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > construction.
>
> David,
>
> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her
> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u'
> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> construction in the historical literature.
>
> Rory
>


From pustetrm at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 23 14:41:17 2006
From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:41:17 -0800
Subject: Dakota ki(N)haN, k?uN, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602220041580.27499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.064117.0800.>

I wonder if kiNhaN might fit in
some way into the pattern of kiN (ki in Lakota) vs. k?uN. Bob usually
explains k?uN as involving something like kiN + uN Perfect-Aux or *ruN
PAST, I think. Could kihaN be a continuative variant? Is there a
ki(N)he?
   
  In  my data, kiN and kiNhaN are used interchangeably in all contexts, although I would assume, as John indicates, that -haN either derives from progressive -haN or from the source of the latter, -haN 'to stand (inanimate subject)'. KiNhe does not exist, and there is no trace of a continuative/progressive/otherwise aspecually charged connotation of kiNhaN in my corpus.
  Footnote on the previous discussion: In addition to the NOUN plus DEM plus ARTICLE patterns, there is also a pattern  NOUN DEM, with the article absent, which is used interchangeably with the two other patterns. Actaully, my speakers prefer the latter patterns, at least the "youngsters" who are under 75. The new pattern probably arose under the influence of English syntax, in which DEM and ART never cooccur.
   
  Regina
   
   
   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/48ff2316/attachment.htm>

From mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU  Thu Feb 23 17:37:25 2006
From: mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU (Mirzayan Armik)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:37:25 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602220016110.27499@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.103725.0700.>

  I'm not sure how much this will help, but I thought I'd send just a note 
about the pitch-accent of these constructions in Lakhota as I've seen them 
in some of my analysis.

I can't say anything too conclusive because I was actually concentrating 
on the pitch accents on other parts of intonational phrase when I did 
some work on the subject.

The piece of data I was working with didn't have too many explicit noun 
phrases that had both the dem and the det, but I do remember running into 
just a couple of cases of [dem N det] and [N det dem].

The one Lakhota [dem N det] construction that I remember was:

    le* aNpe*tu ki osni*yelo
    this  day   the  it's cold
    dem   N     det

In this clause the "le" has a rather high and broad pitch peak followed by 
a downstepped peak on the 2nd syllable of the noun. It is a bit hard to 
figure out what the "ki" is doing as it is really short, compressed 
between the noun and the following verb. It seems to almost participate in 
somewhat of an upstep into the verb that comes next. In either case, it 
definitely seems that the ki here is accentually dependent on the material 
around it (as was mentioned by Rory and John). I have a confusion as to 
the actual alignment of the pitch contour with the segmental tier in the 
"ki" region, so I can't say more on it without going back and looking at 
more cases (and with different lenghts of nouns and so on, if I can find 
such examples in the other spoken samples).

As for the [N det dem], I didn't find many cases of this in the 
conversation I had recorded. I found a couple of cases, but the 
intonational pattern seems harder to sort out than the [dem N det] or 
simply the [N det] cases. I have one case with (suprisingly) the same 
noun:

     aNpe*tu ki le ,   chaNte*-washte*ya wache*kiyapi  ....
     day     the this    with good heart they pray
     N       det dem

In the opening phrase of this sentence the 2nd syllable of the noun 
"aNpe*tu" has a high pitch peak and one sees a downstepped, gradual 
falling pattern on the ki-le sequence. The whole phrase is pronounced 
together, so there is no pause between the N and the det and there is 
definitely no pause between the det and the dem. That is, ki-le is very 
glued together, and my ear tells me that there is a secondary accent on 
the "le", but if there is one it is a very slight accent (almost invisible 
on the pitch track, which shows a somewhat gradual falling contour over 
the whole ki-le sequence). The /e/ on the demonstrative is lengthened, but 
the speaker has definitely put a phrase boundary after the "le" (which 
I've indicated by the comma above), so I would need different cases, at 
least one without a phrase boundary there and possibly also different 
lengths and accent locations of the N, to say anything more.

Don't know if this illuminates anything, but I'm afraid that's all I have 
for now.

Armik

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
>> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
>> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
>> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
>> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
>
> Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
> certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
> from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
> + V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
> diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
> obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
> the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
> with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.
>
> If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
> N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
> Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
> both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
> resumptive and/or appositive.
>
> I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
> established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
> that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
> it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
> and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
> article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
> the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
> Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
> demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
> I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
> think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
> anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
> structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
> completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
> accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.
>
> I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
> or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
> lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
> It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
> diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
> There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
> common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.
>
> I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
> Catherine!
>


From linguista at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 18:29:46 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:29:46 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887788@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.122946.0600.>

On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
>
> The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and,
> I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never
> recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original
> statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must
> be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding
> the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in
> English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.


Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here, I
would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English translation.
In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is definiteness concord on
adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell non-Semitic-speakers to
think of constructions like

ha+bayt ha+gadol
the+house the+big

as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in the
learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive; they
are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

- Bryan Gordon

"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]]
> or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like
> properties also.
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
>
>
>
>
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
> the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
> the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
> articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
>
> > >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well
> as
> > > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
> > > construction.
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get
> her
> > to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
> > she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
> > constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also
> wa?u'
> > s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe
> there
> > is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
> > between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it
> > would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I
> tried
> > nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> > these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as
> > s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
> > between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
> > construction in the historical literature.
> >
> > Rory
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/3fc6e8e6/attachment.htm>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Thu Feb 23 19:30:08 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:30:08 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <48dd2b470602231029i69b1498i753a891156519457@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.133008.0600.>

Bryan wrote:
> Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here,
I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English
translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

>ha+bayt ha+gadol
>the+house the+big

>as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in
the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive;
they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

That raises an interesting question as to where we draw the line between
apposition and agreement of a modifier with the noun modified.
Indo-European languages have classificatory endings on both nouns and
adjectives that might be analogous to the ha+ in Hebrew, but these are
generally considered modification with concord, not apposition.

Given that ha+bayt ha+gadol is the only way to say "the big house" under
Hebrew rules of morphosyntax, is it necessarily wrong to say that this
grammatical arrangement is apposition?  If the native speaker is actually
thinking in terms that would best translate back into English as "the
house, the big one", wouldn't it be better to call this arrangement
apposition than to subordinate it to the European rule of noun modified by
adjective with concord?

Perhaps one possible test would be: can ha+gadol stand on its own as a
nominal element, meaning "the big one"?

Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Feb 23 21:12:51 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:12:51 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.151251.0600.>

I'm aware of article copying on Arabic adjectives, but I don't think there is anything like that operating in Siouan.  It would at least have to be demonstrated.  Modern Omaha does have some strange article use, but it's different from the 19th century variety in this respect.  The common pattern as far as I can tell is DEM N-DET, so the other pattern needs a special translation if it's going to be correctly rendered.
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Bryan Gordon
Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 12:29 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives


On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote: 

	The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single constituent in Kaw, and, I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in Dorsey's day.  And I never recorded anything like that either in the '70's.  So I think Rory's original statement that these are "appositives" or renewed-mention constructions must be what is responsible for what he got over the phone with DEM-DET preceding the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That one, the woman", etc. in English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that one" is referring to.


Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here, I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

ha+bayt ha+gadol
the+house the+big

as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive; they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

- Bryan Gordon



	"That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]] or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly having appositive-like properties also.
	
	Bob
	
	________________________________
	
	From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
	Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM 
	To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
	Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
	
	
	
	
	Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
	the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then, 
	the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
	articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
	
	David S. Rood
	Dept. of Linguistics
	Univ. of Colorado
	295 UCB 
	Boulder, CO 80309-0295
	USA
	rood at colorado.edu
	
	On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
	
	> >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably entails pitch changes as well as 
	> > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect if this is a two-part
	> > construction.
	>
	> David,
	>
	> I was just on the phone with one of our speakers.  I couldn't quite get her 
	> to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own, but when I suggested it
	> she enthusiastically said that that sounded even better than the
	> constructions she had offered.  I got her to say it for me, and also wa?u' 
	> s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed to recall.  I believe there
	> is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in volume and maybe pitch,
	> between the noun and the following dem-det pair.  I was wondering how it 
	> would sound if the noun were not accented on the last syllable, so I tried
	> nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
	> these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair before the noun, as 
	> s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed to be a slight pause
	> between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have ever seen this
	> construction in the historical literature.
	>
	> Rory 
	>
	
	
	
	


From rankin at ku.edu  Thu Feb 23 21:23:08 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:23:08 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.152308.0600.>

Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.  

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson
Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 1:30 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: DPs and Demonstratives



Bryan wrote:
> Although apposition is certainly something that should be looked at here,
I would issue a word of caution about using this sort of English
translation. In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
definiteness concord on adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
non-Semitic-speakers to think of constructions like

>ha+bayt ha+gadol
>the+house the+big

>as "the house, the big one." This encourages an appositive conception in
the learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT necessarily appositive;
they are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.

That raises an interesting question as to where we draw the line between
apposition and agreement of a modifier with the noun modified.
Indo-European languages have classificatory endings on both nouns and
adjectives that might be analogous to the ha+ in Hebrew, but these are
generally considered modification with concord, not apposition.

Given that ha+bayt ha+gadol is the only way to say "the big house" under
Hebrew rules of morphosyntax, is it necessarily wrong to say that this
grammatical arrangement is apposition?  If the native speaker is actually
thinking in terms that would best translate back into English as "the
house, the big one", wouldn't it be better to call this arrangement
apposition than to subordinate it to the European rule of noun modified by
adjective with concord?

Perhaps one possible test would be: can ha+gadol stand on its own as a
nominal element, meaning "the big one"?

Rory


From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Feb 23 21:55:36 2006
From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:55:36 +0000
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <48dd2b470602231029i69b1498i753a891156519457@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.215536.0000.>

Interesting point about the Hebrew and Arabic
constructions.  I have often referred to this as
'apposition' in Arabic, but as you say it is more
general than apposition in say English and is in fact
the general way of arranging coreferent nouns together
whether we would call the second one an adjective as
in al-bet al-kabir 'the house the big' ie 'the big
house' or where we would call the second a noun as in
al-walad al-shaikh 'the boy who is a shaikh' or 'the
shaikh boy, boy-shaikh'.  The point is in Arabic that
this differs from the other structure, the possessive
or attributive one, where the two are not coreferent
as in walad al-shaikh 'the boy (son) of the shaikh' 

Bruce
 --- Bryan Gordon <linguista at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/22/06, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The DEM-DET NOUN just isn't possible as a single
> constituent in Kaw, and,
> > I suspect in Dhegiha generally, at least in
> Dorsey's day.  And I never
> > recorded anything like that either in the '70's. 
> So I think Rory's original
> > statement that these are "appositives" or
> renewed-mention constructions must
> > be what is responsible for what he got over the
> phone with DEM-DET preceding
> > the N.  I'd render it "That one, the man" or "That
> one, the woman", etc. in
> > English, where "man/woman" clarifies what "that
> one" is referring to.
> 
> 
> Although apposition is certainly something that
> should be looked at here, I
> would issue a word of caution about using this sort
> of English translation.
> In Arabic and Hebrew, for example, in which there is
> definiteness concord on
> adjectives in NP's, teaching grammars often tell
> non-Semitic-speakers to
> think of constructions like
> 
> ha+bayt ha+gadol
> the+house the+big
> 
> as "the house, the big one." This encourages an
> appositive conception in the
> learner's mind. But these constructions are NOT
> necessarily appositive; they
> are simply what is required by Semitic morphosyntax.
> 
> - Bryan Gordon
> 
> "That man" or "that woman" would, I think, have to
> be [[DEM] [wo/man DET]]
> > or [[wo/man] [DEM-DET]], with the latter possibly
> having appositive-like
> > properties also.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of
> ROOD DAVID S
> > Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 6:21 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: RE: DPs and Demonstratives
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely
> impossible in Lakota, which is
> > the only one of these languages I know even a
> little about.  But then,
> > the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The
> evolution of the Dhegiha
> > articles must be quite different from that of the
> Lakhota ones.
> >
> > David S. Rood
> > Dept. of Linguistics
> > Univ. of Colorado
> > 295 UCB
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> > USA
> > rood at colorado.edu
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Rory M Larson wrote:
> >
> > > >  The "comma-like" pause (which probably
> entails pitch changes as well
> > as
> > > > just a pause) is exactly what I would expect
> if this is a two-part
> > > > construction.
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > I was just on the phone with one of our
> speakers.  I couldn't quite get
> > her
> > > to offer nu' s^e'akHa for 'that man' on her own,
> but when I suggested it
> > > she enthusiastically said that that sounded even
> better than the
> > > constructions she had offered.  I got her to say
> it for me, and also
> > wa?u'
> > > s^e'dhiNkHe.  Her pronunciation was as I seemed
> to recall.  I believe
> > there
> > > is a slight pause/vowel prolongation/drop in
> volume and maybe pitch,
> > > between the noun and the following dem-det pair.
>  I was wondering how it
> > > would sound if the noun were not accented on the
> last syllable, so I
> > tried
> > > nu'z^iNga ('boy'), mi'z^iNga ('girl'), and
> s^iN'gaz^iNga ('child').  On
> > > these, she preferred placing the dem-det pair
> before the noun, as
> > > s^e'dhiNkHe nu'z^iNga, etc.  Again, there seemed
> to be a slight pause
> > > between dem-det and N.  I don't know that I have
> ever seen this
> > > construction in the historical literature.
> > >
> > > Rory
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu  Thu Feb 23 22:06:09 2006
From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:06:09 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.160609.0600.>

Ok, I'm going to jump in here, though with some trepidation since I haven't actually read a lot of the messages in this thread.  If I wait till I find time to read them carefully (much less go back and check any data) I'll never get to it.  Where DO you guys get the time?  
 
Anyhow, I can't resist rising to the bait of "strange article use" in Omaha and the notion of article copying/definiteness agreement vs. apposition.  
 
As some of you know, I once did a paper on Omaha constructions like "Ga-akHa nu-akHa" (this-the man-the) or "wa'u-thiNkHe she-thinkHe" (woman-the that-the), with a demonstrative and a noun, each with matching definite article suffixed.  These are fairly common, both in the speech of my consultants and in Dorsey.  Extremely common in the speech of a couple of constultants, who happened to be the most fluent, even Omaha-dominant speakers I recorded, so I don't think it's a semi-speaker effect of any kind.  My memory is that the DEM-art N-art order is considerably more common than the reverse.  Occasionally there are more than 2 parts to the construction, i.e. DEM-art N-art N-art.  The obvious analysis of these is that they are appositive constructions (possibly a hesitation phenomenon, buying time with a DEM while searching for a more specific word??) and this looks particularly likely when one of the parts is a proper name ("She-akHa nuzhiNga-akHa Bill-akHa", i.e. "that boy, Bill").  In my paper I tried to make a case for analyzing them instead as defniteness agreement, with article (optionally) spreading to all parts of a complex DP.  At this point I can't remember what the arguments were, but in any case it's not an entirely straightforward decision in either direction.  If people are interested I could dig it out and try to give some sort of synopsis.  
 
Going back to an earlier part of the thread:   For nominal phrases with both demonstrative and article (or deictic & specificity marker or whatever they are), a 2-tier X-bar with the determiner (aka article aka specificity element) highest seems right to me.  That is, something like John's tree below.  (I've cleaned up the spacing so it lines up right on my screen... hopefully didn't mess it up for everyone else.)
 
            DP
             !
            D'
          /   !
        NP   D
       / !
 DEM  N'
           !
          N
 
This would, as John said, nicely allow for [DEM  N] and [N  DEM] orders while keeping the article last; it also works nicely for allowing the "specificity" feature to spread across the whole phrase in case that turns out to be the right analysis of the Omaha doubled-article constructions above.  :-)  
  
Catherine

>>> rankin at ku.edu 2/23/2006 3:12 PM >>>

I'm aware of article copyingon Arabic adjectives, but I don't think there is anything like that operating inSiouan. It would at least have to be demonstrated. Modern Omaha doeshave some strange article use, but it's different from the 19th century varietyin this respect. The common pattern as far as I can tell is DEM N-DET, sothe other pattern needs a special translation if it's going to be correctlyrendered.

Bob

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/e17f8b9f/attachment.htm>

From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Fri Feb 24 03:08:24 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:08:24 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <C70AC5440FBE564E828E8051E8D3CBE601887799@MAILBOXSIX.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.210824.0600.>

Bob wrote:
> Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in
the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these
things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.

Yes, I'd certainly agree with that.  But I think Bryan's example is a fair
analogy to the point we were discussing.  Is the combination N dem-det an
apposition with N and dem-det standing separately as two co-equal nominals,
or does the dem-det modify/restrict/classify the N such that the N is the
sole head of the N dem-det noun phrase?  Or can there be an intermediate
interpretation?  Perhaps it is ambiguous or ambivalent even within the
population of native speakers?

Rory


From linguista at gmail.com  Fri Feb 24 03:39:57 2006
From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:39:57 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <OF931D497E.25896126-ON8625711F.000FC5D5-8625711F.0010197A@unl.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.213957.0600.>

On 2/23/06, Rory M Larson <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
> > Then, of course, there's the question whether Siouan has "modifiers" in
> the Indo-European or Semitic sense.  I think most of us agree that these
> things have verbal force (or are simply verbs) in Siouan.
>
> Yes, I'd certainly agree with that.  But I think Bryan's example is a fair
> analogy to the point we were discussing.  Is the combination N dem-det an
> apposition with N and dem-det standing separately as two co-equal
> nominals,
> or does the dem-det modify/restrict/classify the N such that the N is the
> sole head of the N dem-det noun phrase?  Or can there be an intermediate
> interpretation?  Perhaps it is ambiguous or ambivalent even within the
> population of native speakers?


This is the right question to ask. Although we can never truly rule out
intermediate interpretations entirely in the sphere of how much attention
speakers pay to the distinction, I would say that apposition versus
restriction are more or less in complementary opposition, since they entail
radically different syntactic structures (i.e., two separate NP's as opposed
to one NP properly contained within another).

As far as the Semitic examples are concerned, they certainly can be
appositions as in (1), and the Det-adj constructions can certainly function
as independent NP's as in (2).

1. (apposition - non-restrictive)
bil klinton dibar ?emesh. ha+nashi? ha+maksim lavash xalifa shel ?armani
Bill Clinton spoke last.night. the+president the+charismatic wore suit of
Armani.

2. (restrictive)
shne ?anashim ba?u, ha+?ish ha+gavoa bi+shmone v+ha+guts b+?eser
two men came arrived, the+man the+tall at+eight and+the+short at+ten

But the construction "ha?ish hagavoa" is clearly restrictive, even though it
is not formally (morphosyntactically) distinguished from the apposition
"hanashi? hamaksim." It is, however, probable that there is a considerable
difference in stress and/or intonation (i.e., accenting the restrictive
"hagavoa" while leaving the all-old-information "hanashi? hamaksim"
completely accentless).

Rory
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060223/ab92f909/attachment.htm>

From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 15:54:25 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:54:25 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <s3fddd8b.078@hermes.wsc.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.085425.0700.>

>  Going back to an earlier part of the thread:  For nominal phrases with
> both demonstrative and article (or deictic & specificity marker or
> whatever they are), a 2-tier X-bar with the determiner (aka article aka
> specificity element) highest seems right to me.  That is, something like
> John's tree below.  (I've cleaned up the spacing so it lines up right on
> my screen... hopefully didn't mess it up for everyone else.)
>
>             DP
>              !
>             D'
>           /   !
>         NP   D
>        / !
>  DEM  N'
>            !
>           N
>  This would, as John said, nicely allow for [DEM N] and [N DEM] orders
> while keeping the article last; it also works nicely for allowing the
> "specificity" feature to spread across the whole phrase in case that
> turns out to be the right analysis of the Omaha doubled-article
> constructions above.  :-)


	The idea of 2 layers of X-bar structure works for Lakota, too, but
the details are very different, since we ALWAYS have the DEM outside the
DET, and the DET cannot occur to the left of the N no matter what.

David


From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 15:48:10 2006
From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:48:10 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602222243450.8604@cslr.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.084810.0700.>

Thanks, Armik -- it's always good to have concrete data instead of
impressions.  Given what you've said, my theory that the DEM is a
resumptive pronoun is clearly called into question, at least for "le" and
in this expression.  I wonder if "he" would behave differently, since
that's the one that's most often used as a third person pronoun.
	I don't think this is relevant to the Dhegiha discussion, however,
since there are too many differences: the whole article system is
different, and the order dem-det is impossible in Lakota but normal there.
	David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Mirzayan Armik wrote:

>
>   I'm not sure how much this will help, but I thought I'd send just a note
> about the pitch-accent of these constructions in Lakhota as I've seen them
> in some of my analysis.
>
> I can't say anything too conclusive because I was actually concentrating
> on the pitch accents on other parts of intonational phrase when I did
> some work on the subject.
>
> The piece of data I was working with didn't have too many explicit noun
> phrases that had both the dem and the det, but I do remember running into
> just a couple of cases of [dem N det] and [N det dem].
>
> The one Lakhota [dem N det] construction that I remember was:
>
>     le* aNpe*tu ki osni*yelo
>     this  day   the  it's cold
>     dem   N     det
>
> In this clause the "le" has a rather high and broad pitch peak followed by
> a downstepped peak on the 2nd syllable of the noun. It is a bit hard to
> figure out what the "ki" is doing as it is really short, compressed
> between the noun and the following verb. It seems to almost participate in
> somewhat of an upstep into the verb that comes next. In either case, it
> definitely seems that the ki here is accentually dependent on the material
> around it (as was mentioned by Rory and John). I have a confusion as to
> the actual alignment of the pitch contour with the segmental tier in the
> "ki" region, so I can't say more on it without going back and looking at
> more cases (and with different lenghts of nouns and so on, if I can find
> such examples in the other spoken samples).
>
> As for the [N det dem], I didn't find many cases of this in the
> conversation I had recorded. I found a couple of cases, but the
> intonational pattern seems harder to sort out than the [dem N det] or
> simply the [N det] cases. I have one case with (suprisingly) the same
> noun:
>
>      aNpe*tu ki le ,   chaNte*-washte*ya wache*kiyapi  ....
>      day     the this    with good heart they pray
>      N       det dem
>
> In the opening phrase of this sentence the 2nd syllable of the noun
> "aNpe*tu" has a high pitch peak and one sees a downstepped, gradual
> falling pattern on the ki-le sequence. The whole phrase is pronounced
> together, so there is no pause between the N and the det and there is
> definitely no pause between the det and the dem. That is, ki-le is very
> glued together, and my ear tells me that there is a secondary accent on
> the "le", but if there is one it is a very slight accent (almost invisible
> on the pitch track, which shows a somewhat gradual falling contour over
> the whole ki-le sequence). The /e/ on the demonstrative is lengthened, but
> the speaker has definitely put a phrase boundary after the "le" (which
> I've indicated by the comma above), so I would need different cases, at
> least one without a phrase boundary there and possibly also different
> lengths and accent locations of the N, to say anything more.
>
> Don't know if this illuminates anything, but I'm afraid that's all I have
> for now.
>
> Armik
>
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Koontz John E wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> >> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which
> >> is the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But
> >> then, the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the
> >> Dhegiha articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.
> >
> > Belatedly chiming in, I think this is definitely the case, and it is
> > certainly consistent with Bob's work deriving most of the Dhegiha articles
> > from the positional verbs:  noun det dem => noun det dem positional (= NP
> > + V) => noun dem=positional.  Perhaps it would make sense in a purely
> > diachronic context to consider the Dhegiha articles as something like an
> > obligatory accompaniment of a now missing noun-final definite article in
> > the Dakota fashion.  They are conditioned by (concordial in definiteness)
> > with this deleted element, and concordial in position/shape with the noun.
> >
> > If this is true, then Dhegiha N dem=det would be expected to match Dakotan
> > N=det dem approximately in functionality, and Dhegiha dem N=det to match
> > Dakotan dem N=det.  I think this is consistant with what you and Rory have
> > both said, i.e., I think you are both treating the posposed dem forms as
> > resumptive and/or appositive.
> >
> > I always thought of the OP N dem=det forms as less marked, but I think we
> > established contrary to my expectations (and without actual statistics)
> > that dem N and dem N=det are actually more common in the texts.  I believe
> > it is possible for dem=det N to occur, or even things like dem=det N=det
> > and N=det dem=det, especially in modern usage.  I have never seen the
> > article (det) before the noun without a preceding dem (or pro, perhaps, in
> > the case of e=) to depend upon.  Like the Dakota definite articles the
> > Dhegiha definite articles are obligatorily enclitic, and the
> > demonstratives are not.  I don't know about pauses and prolongations, but
> > I am pretty sure that the demonstrative is always a new high pitch.  I
> > think dem N has both components accented, too.  I'm not sure about
> > anything like downstepping or other possible indications of phrase
> > structure and whether there is any difference in the two cases.  I
> > completely agree with Rory that the definite article is swallowed up by or
> > accentually dependent upon the preceding element.  It is never a new high.
> >
> > I'm not sure if indefinite articles are enclitic to the preceding element
> > or not.  They never follow a demonstrative, as far as I know.  Dhegiha
> > lacks the elaborate partitive realis coding of indefinites in Dakotan.
> > It does distinguish waN (singular) vs. duba ~ j^uba (plural, plural
> > diminutive).  I'm not sure if duba is partitive as well as plural.
> > There is a sort of "topicalizer" =de that seems to have some properties in
> > common with Dakotan =c^ha, but I'm not sure if it still exists.
> >
> > I'm waiting for clarification and probably some corrections from Ardis and
> > Catherine!
> >
>


From mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU  Fri Feb 24 21:40:44 2006
From: mirzayan at cslr.Colorado.EDU (Mirzayan Armik)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:40:44 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602240844190.2200@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.24.FEB.2006.144044.0700.>

David, thanks for the clarification.

I should have stated in my email that the content had nothing to 
contribute directly to the Dhegiha discussion! I do realize that the 
article system is different from Lakhota and that the dem-det order is 
impossible in Lakhota. I only thought the information might illuminate a 
way of looking at the Dhegiha pitch-accent in the same types of phrases, 
though maybe others have already done so.

Regarding the Lakhota dem "he", I also wonder if it behaves differently. I 
have only analyzed one token in the same (conversational) data with the N 
det-dem order where the dem is "he", but unfortunately it's overlapped 
speech and I have a hard time hearing it well. I'll look for more in the 
other parts of the data to see if I can indentify any other (clearer) 
ones.

    Armik

>
> Thanks, Armik -- it's always good to have concrete data instead of
> impressions.  Given what you've said, my theory that the DEM is a
> resumptive pronoun is clearly called into question, at least for "le" and
> in this expression.  I wonder if "he" would behave differently, since
> that's the one that's most often used as a third person pronoun.
> 	I don't think this is relevant to the Dhegiha discussion, however,
> since there are too many differences: the whole article system is
> different, and the order dem-det is impossible in Lakota but normal there.
> 	David
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>


From John.Koontz at colorado.edu  Mon Feb 27 22:03:58 2006
From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:03:58 -0700
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602241429180.6195@cslr.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.150358.0700.>

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Mirzayan Armik wrote:
> I should have stated in my email that the content had nothing to
> contribute directly to the Dhegiha discussion!

It's interesting seeing the data in parallel, though, and I don't think
anyone were confused.  It's interesting to see the Dakota data discussed
in terms of pitch accent, too.

> I do realize that the article system is different from Lakhota and that
> the dem-det order is impossible in Lakhota. I only thought the
> information might illuminate a way of looking at the Dhegiha
> pitch-accent in the same types of phrases, though maybe others have
> already done so.

I think that the whole issue of pitch accent at any level above the word
is an unexplored one.  Even within the word I'm not sure it's been well
explored in those languages where it has been adopted as an explanation.
I've never gone beyond a very impressionistic applicaiton in Omaha.

There are definitely limits to analogizing one language's syntax with
another, as has been pointed out, but one interesting consequence of
thinking of the Dhegiha definite articles historically as secondary
concordial elements co-occurring with a now missing definite marker
analogous to the Dakota definite article is that it tends to explain how
they can co-occur with both the noun and a preceding demonstrative.  If
they are gender markers that occur only with definite NPs, then they can
easily be extended to a preceding demonstrative that has a definite
reference, by analogy with what would happen with an independent
demonstrative, or with one following the NP.  In other words, the Dhegiha
articles replace definite articles functionally, but retain the syntactic
behavior of a predicate.

Indicating a definite element with X(def) and using gen for gender to mark
the location of the article, then given the patterns

dem(def)-gen
N(def) dem-gen

the development

dem N(def)-gen => dem-gen N(def)-gen

is natural, at least if the pattern dem N(def)-gen is at least potentially
analyzable as two NPs in a way that N(def) dem-gen is not.  I think this
would be just the sort of concordial marking that Catherine suggests.

I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.


From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu  Tue Feb 28 00:11:51 2006
From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:11:51 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602271429550.18116@spot.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.181151.0600.>

> I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
> seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.

John,

Can you give us a definition of 'focus construction', in contrast to
'apposition', and in relation to singleton NPs?

Thanks!
Rory


From rankin at ku.edu  Tue Feb 28 15:18:31 2006
From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:18:31 -0600
Subject: DPs and Demonstratives
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.091831.0600.>

> I think that the whole issue of pitch accent at any level above the word
is an unexplored one.  Even within the word I'm not sure it's been well
explored in those languages where it has been adopted as an explanation.
I've never gone beyond a very impressionistic applicaiton in Omaha.

I have a grad student in Linguistics working on this in Kaw as a project for a phonology seminar on tone, accent and syllable structure that Jie Zhang is giving.  Hopefully we'll all learn more from it.


> is natural, at least if the pattern dem N(def)-gen is at least potentially
analyzable as two NPs in a way that N(def) dem-gen is not.  I think this
would be just the sort of concordial marking that Catherine suggests.

Catherine's data was interesting for the sheer amount of replication involved.  It was far more than I ever had in Kaw or Quapaw.  It didn't seem to mirror Dorsey's 1890 materials, but of course Dorsey was using a totally different method of elicitation and had to write everything without benefit of recordings.  And he was working in different genres.  So I wonder if Omaha has changed or whether maybe JOD just missed these particular patterns.  

> I don't know if we'd want to call dem N constructions apposition.  It
seems to me more likely to be a focus construction.

Assuming apposition and focus are really completely different things.  My only point in comparison to the Semitic data we were looking at is that the DEM/DET syntactic structures are contrastive in Dhegiha Siouan, whereas in Semitic I wasn't sure that was the case.  There adjs. (nouns, whatever they be) simply require the article if I understood correctly.

Bob