Lakota chaNnuNpa

[shokooh Ingham]

Also earlier Arabic yishrab jigaarah 'he drinks a
cigarette'
Bruce
--- David Costa <pankihtamwa at earthlink.net> wrote:

> It's around elsewhere. The verb 'to drink' is used
> for smoking tobacco in
> several Eastern Algonquian languages. For example,
> in
> Massachusett-Narragansett, the word for 'tobacco'
> literally means 'what one
> drinks'.
> 
> Dave Costa
> 
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html