"WOUND"

[Rankin, Robert L]

That's a really good point.  David is probably on the right track, and by extension, the conservative (unattested) form for 'I wounded it' would then probably be *[b-o].  The only problem beside the lack of a form [uNk?ipi] is the consistent initial /h/ in 'come' in many of the other languages.  But as I think we've said before, that H is probably an analogical development based on /hi/ 'arrive'.  
 
It remains to check the 1st du. and pl. forms of 'come' in Chiwere, Dhegiha, etc., although the 1st pl. forms, as I think John said, are notoriously poor preservers of [?].
 
Bob

Bob, is the verb 'come', "u" in Lakota, a ?-stem?  It isn't in Lak.
itself, because the first plural is unkupi, not unk?upi, but I don't know
whether you reconstruct a difference between a vowel-initial and a ?
initial root to PSi.
        The reason this is relevant is that the compound hiyu 'start
coming' is, in the "archaic" language of 70-100 years ago, double
conjugated wahibu, yahilu (no one does this today as far as I know).  I
can't find my copy of Riggs at the moment, to check on whether the bare
verb was ever conjugated bu, du or not; Buechel gives only wau ([wa?u]).
        David

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

On Wed, 3 May 2006, Rankin, Robert L wrote:

> Our question about this verb had to do with the conservative pronominal prefixes that commonly occur with stems beginning with */?/.  These are syncopating stems in the cases we have in which the verb root has a nasal vowel, so Dhegiha *?uN: 'do, be' is conjugated /muN/, /z^uN/.  Languages that have reflexes of regular *wa+?uN, *ra+?uN are not germaine to the discussion.
>
> As John says, *?o: 'wound' is the only known case of a ?-stem with an oral vowel.  So, what was the conservative (syncopating) pronoun allomorph used before analogy yielded regularized forms?  The bottom line is that apparently we still don't know.  An educated GUESS might be that the pronominals should be oral versions of */m-/ and */y- ~ r/ in the 1st and 2nd persons, but what would those forms be?  In Dhegiha, probably /z^-/ in the 2nd person, but what about the 1st person?  And what about Dakotan?  Is the oral variant of [m] a [w] or a [b] preceding an underlying glottal stop that was lost here?  Would Dakotan have been *[bo], *[do], [bo], [no], [mo], [no] or what?  I suspect we'll never know.  The analogically regular forms are prehistoric and were never recorded as far as I know.  One of life's little mysteries. . . .
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E
> Sent: Wed 5/3/2006 2:09 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: "WOUND"
>
>
>
> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Koontz John E wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2006, Justin McBride wrote:
> > > u, v. to wound
> > >
> > > awá e aú, I have wounded it (=á-u-á-ye aú ?)
> > > yúa e aú, hiN, have you wounded it?
>
> > Pursuing your logic, which starts with Dorsey's and takes it a step or two
> > further, the forms here are something like
> >
> > A1      a-o   a e au   I should have written a-(o) a e au.  JEK
> > A2   y(a)-o   a e au
> > A3        o-be    au
>
> I wondered momentarily about Ks yo anent PMV *yo 'you wound'.  However, Ks
> has regular A2 ya < PDH *dha (*ra) < PMV *ra.  Ks has z^ from PDh *z^ <
> PMV *y.  Ks has z^ in the second person of ?-stems like the rest of
> Dhegiha, not y.  In other words, the full PS second person active pronoun
> *ya and the short form *y diverge in Dhegiha and in MV generally.
>
> I suppose it's possible, however, that the -a- bit is the old theme vowel
> (-e in *oo-e), but that doesn't explain e, and we'd have to assume that
> this fossil theme vowel was lost before the plural/proximate marker.
>
> A1     a-o-a    e au
> A2  y(a)-o-a    e au
> A3       o=b(i) e
>
> For what it's worth, this back and forth analysis and counter analysis of
> the stuff after the verb reminds a lot of the state of Dorsey's notes on
> OP.
>
> At least I hypothesize that we will be able to figure out the ae by
> comparing with "other short verbs" on the one hand and things that like a
> punctual reading (like push, shove, spit, throw, etc.) on the other.
>
>
>
>
>