Lakota chaNnuNpa

[David Kaufman]

> there's a root iN 'to suck, to smoke', often used with tobacco-forms >
   
  Well, whaddya know?  I came across Biloxi "yaniksoni iNni," (smoke a pipe) where iNni looks the same as the verb "to drink."  I was wondering why they would "drink" a tobacco pipe, but now it seems this is a different verb root altogether?  (Although I suppose some relation could be made between sucking and drinking?)
   
  Dave

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
  On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, REGINA PUSTET wrote:
> This m-/n-class is getting more and more exciting. I'm wondering how
> this pattern arose and if it is old or more recent. Do other Siouan
> languages have similar patterns? I think I heard that there is a
> connection with the stative paradigm ma-/ni-. How robust is this
> hypothesis? Once we know more about the history of the class, we might
> know more about its degree of (ir)regularity.

These m/n/0 inflected forms have been discussed extensively on the list
(see the recent discussion of 'wound'). They are fairly well distributed
and the stems subject to the pattern are generally the same small set.
Hence the delightfulness of 'wound' participating in it in Winnebago.

The 'tobacco' and 'pipe' sets are full of them, and these sets are
discussed in the CSD in copious detail, because 'tobacco' and
'kinnikinnick' forms are so clearly loanwords in Siouan. The paradigm is
somewhat irregular in its developments, even without the oddities
in 'c^haNnuNpa.

Dhegiha has m/z^/0. I explain that to my satisfaction in the 'wound'
discussion. I think the Dakota second persons are visiting from the
nasalized r-stems.

These m/n/0 forms are not statives, though the paradigm is frequently
misunderstood in this light in Dakotan work. I won't say we know "all"
about the class, but we know a great deal, and spend most of our time now
arguing small details, cf. the 'wound' discussion.

In c^haNn=uNpa the extra -u- may have to do with an extra -hu- (perhaps
'stem'?) in the first and second person, i.e., c^haN=hu=uNpa.

Consider the Riggs form c^aNduhupa (h very very carefully checked), which
seems to be c^haNd=uhupa. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be inflected.
I suspect it is something like c^haNd=(h?)u=hupa. Maybe the hupa and uNpa
are not unconnected? I'm remebering some odd correspondences like this
from somewhere else - forms having to do with cradle boards?

To complicate things, there's a root iN 'to suck, to smoke', often used
with tobacco-forms and in things like aziN. The latter is inflected
a-wa-ziN, but it may be *az=miN, etc., historically.



 __________________________________________________
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/20060624/a35616e4/attachment.html>