How great you are/"Porosity" of Lakh. Parts of Speech?

Thu Jun 29 18:59:20 UTC 2006

> I am much exercised by the problem of the classification/ 
definition of Parts of Speech in Lakhota. The fluidity and 
"porosity" (so to say) of Lakhota [and Biloxi] word-categories absolutely 
intrigues me! I am striving, (somewhat unsuccessfully maybe), to undo 
the effect of years of familiarity/training with the relatively 
"black & white" categorizing of "THE Parts of Speech" deriving from 
Ancient Greek & Latin paradigms of grammatical & syntactic 
analysis : Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Adverb, Conjunction, Verb, 
participle, Infinitive, Particle; Principle Clause, Subordinate Cl., 
etc., etc.) But at least one CAN now clearly see the limits of its 
utility in analysing Native American languages. >

  I second this emotion!  Polynesian languages are also a close second to many Amerindian languages in their defiance of traditional IE "rules" of grammar (since the former rely mostly on "particles" to define a word's part of speech).  But of course it's very Eurocentric to think all languages should conform to the "traditional" Greek/Latin way of looking at language and the world.  This is good practice in "broadening our horizons"!  

  Dave

  Clive Bloomfield <cbloom at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
  Hau Alfred chiye, Nice work! ( and with Net-Siouan transcription 
also!). You beat me to the "punch" there, gut gemacht lieber 
Freund! :-) Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder whether or not it 
is on record, who composed this Lakhota version? : A non-Lakota (a 
cleric/missionary of some description, [ perhaps?]), or some 
anonymous native-speaking "convert"? I always like to know a text's 
provenance, if at all possible - but perhaps that is expecting a bit 
much in this 
case! 

Initially, it occurred to me that the third 
line of the first stanza might be a subordinate adverbial (temporal) 
clause, with the postposition "el" in its "conjunctional" use as a 
subordinator, with a nominalized clause preceeding. [See Buechel Gr. 
(p.250, #148, 2); Ingham, 12.2.2.1.] This would then make lines 2 & 
3 into two temporal clauses "in tandem" (as it were), both 
subordinate to the principal clause of the 4th line : ("WHEN/WHENEVER 
["chan" perhaps being a truncated form of "channa".] I SEE THE STARS 
AND WHEN THE THUNDERBEINGS CRY OUT(AT the crying out of the Thunder 
Birds), YOUR POWER IS MADE MANIFEST." But then one notes that in this 
usage, "el" seems usually to follow the verb of said Nominalized Sub. 
Cl. immediately, or else be itself immediately preceeded by a 
nominalizing "kin/k'un"(which may also be omitted, Fr. Eugene tells 
us)==>"k'el". But, so far, I've been unable to locate any instances 
of this type of clause, in which other elements (as : Demonstative 
"lena" here, and Conjunction "kho") are permitted to intervene. I 
would suppose these "extras" may militate against the possibility of 
"hontonpi" being a Verb (to be translated "dynamically", as above), 
rather than a typically De-verbal Noun followed by Postposition as 
you have rendered it? On balance I suspect your simple prepositional 
phrasal translation of line 3, (Stanza 1) is probably better. As you 
know, I am much exercised by the problem of the classification/ 
definition of Parts of Speech in Lakhota. The fluidity and 
"porosity" (so to say) of Lakhota word-categories absolutely 
intrigues me! I am striving, (somewhat unsuccessfully maybe), to undo 
the effect of years of familiarity/training with the relatively 
"black & white" categorizing of "THE Parts of Speech" deriving from 
Ancient Greek & Latin paradigms of grammatical & syntactic 
analysis : Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Adverb, Conjunction, Verb, 
participle, Infinitive, Particle; Principle Clause, Subordinate Cl., 
etc., etc.) But at least one CAN now clearly see the limits of its 
utility in analysing Native American languages. Just to give an 
obvious illustrative example : the word "wowapi" seems to be, when 
the context & syntax require, [or perhaps even SIMULTANEOUSLY?] : 1) 
VERB,(on most literal level). Finite,Indef. Object., 3rdp. Pl. [=they 
write/wrote (things)] ; 2) NOUN : [=book/writing/letter/email/etc.]; 
3) (equivalent of) PAST PARTICIPLE PASSIVE : "they write stuff==>it 
is WRITTEN". One supposes that 2) is just a nominalized off-shoot of 
3). For a classicist, this "Porosity" of Word Classes, a inherent 
"layering" in the grammatical structure, was quite mind-blowing at 
one's first encounter, and very salutary for one's mental agility! 
Similarly, with the problem of Subordination Vs Coordination, (or 
Hypotaxis Vs Parataxis as it was termed in studies of Greek Prose 
Styles). 

I 
would like to say that I have found Bruce Ingham's admirably succinct 
treatment of these matters in Section 8 of "Lakota"(2003), and in his 
IJAL Papers on Nominal & Verbal Status in L., and on the 
Demonstrative stems most illuminating! He un lila pilamayaye lo, 
Bruce :-)! No doubt what I have written above is very old news to 
the expert Siouan scholars here, but to try to formulate a problem 
does help to clarifiy one's thoughts, at times. Bruce, I love those 
categories of Circumstantial Stems & T-Words, as you refer to them in 
Section 10. I must say that the first thing that sprang to mind, when 
I read of those T-Words like taku/tuwe/tona/toketu/tokel, etc., was 
that they strongly reminded me of a class of words in the Greek 
grammar, [Correlative Pronouns : See "Greek Grammar" by H.W. Smythe, 
HUP,(1920) 1972, p.98. Sect.340.)] in which the same word, (e.g. 
"tis") may be, (according to syntactical context), Interrogative 
Pronoun/Adjective - always Accented, usu. Clause-Initial (=, in this 
case,"WHO?WHAT (noun)?"); Indefinite Pronoun (Enclitic) (="SOMEBODY/ 
ANYBODY") - coincidentally, also a "T-word" in A.Greek! However, I 
realize that analogical parallels between completely unrelated 
languages on different continents are of limited usefulness, and must 
not be pressed too far, but that knowledge helped me, I fancy, to 
better grasp your "deconstruction" of the concepts involved. Ake 
wopila! I would not wish to infringe protocol here again, but it was 
a great thrill for me to receive your friendly email in flawlessly 
elegant Lakotaiyapi! I understood every word. Best wishes & "Bon 
Voyage" to your daughter & grandchild! Byron Bay in Northern N.S.W. 
is a splendid place to live! I wonder if we might continue such an 
(occasional) correspondence in Lakota, off the 
list? 
Alfred, chiye, 
the only other detail in your faithful rendering I wanted to query, 
is in Second Stanza, line 3 : Wouldn't "Wanikhiya Mithawa kin" be 
just a Vocative? [="My Saviour, you died!"]; and "You died for me/ 
mine" be : "mayakichit"e"==> Truncated, or "Short Form" (Buech.Gr,p. 
45, #41)==> "miyecit"e"< Second Dative Verb : kit'A [=die for]? 
Toksha akhe, mitakuyepi, Clive.
On 28/06/2006, at 4:25 PM, Alfred W. Tüting wrote:

>
>> How Great You Are (In Sioux)
>
> Wa-kan-tan-ka, Mako-che Ki Le Lu-ha
> Wi-cah-pi Lena Ko Wan Bla-ka Chan
> Wa-ki-yan Hon Ton Pi Kin Le-na Ko El
> Wo-wa-sha-ke Ni-ta-wa Kin Ta-nin
>
> Mi-na-gi Kin He-ya A Lo-o-wan
> Wa-ni-ki-ya, Wa-kan-tan-ka
> Wa-ni-ki-ya, Mi-Ta-wa Kin Ni-te
> I-ni-tan-can, I-ni-tan-can <<
>
>
> My rough translation:
>
>
> G-d, you possess (hold) this land/country (in your hands)
> And when(?) I see the stars,
> in the thunders
> your power/strength manifests.
>
> My spirit sings in praise (of you) saying:
> Saviour, G-d
> Saviour, (for) mine you-died
> you're (the) L-rd, you're (the) L-rd
>
>
> wakxaN-txaNka, makxoche kiN le luha
> wichah^pi lena kxo waNblake chaN
> wakiyaNhotxuNpi kiN lena kxo el
> wowas^ake nitxawa kiN tan?iN
>
> minag^i kiN heya alowaN
> wanikiya, wakxaN-txaNka
> wanikiya, mitxawa kiN nit?e
> initxaNchaN, initxaNchaN
>
>
> Alfred
>
>
>

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060629/c6f5d4e9/attachment.html>