Biloxi and Proto-Siouan (Re: Yuecetu ..)

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, David Kaufman wrote:
>   > Would one be correct in assuming aNk to be cognate with Lakhota
> "wa-", (1s "actor" pronominal prefix); with initial semivowel
> "weakening" to the point of disappearance, and nasalisation also?  Is
> that "-k" interpolated due to the following vowel, as in Lakhota
> "unk[oyaka]pi" 1pPl. of "oyakA" [=tell; recount]? >
>
>   Yes, I believe aNk- is cognate with Lakhota wa-.

Actually, it is generally accepted that Biloxi (regular) first person nk
(probably */aNk/) is cognate with Dakotan uNk 'inclusive'.  There are some
additional allomorphs, as David mentions, including n- with d-stems
(*r-stems).

>   > Might "-iNxti-" conceivably be cognate with Lakhota "-ic'i-"
> (reflexive infix) >
>
>   Looks like it.

I think the resemblance is coinsidered interesting, but I'm not sure the
correspondece is regular.

===

As David says, Einaudi's expedient of phonemicizing Biloxi by lopping off
the diacritics sometimes fails!  He's been looking into the complex issue
of a vs. u, oral and nasal!  In spite of various shortcomings, Einaudi's
book is an important step beyond Dorsey & Swanton.  I'm still looking
forward to what David doing to improve on it!