"WOUND"

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 4 May 2006, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> 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.

Yes, though as I never tire of pointing out, the h is *not* entirely
consistent, unlike the h in *hi 'arrive there'.  Actually Dakotan loses h
in that, but losing initial h in verbs is consistent in Dakotan.

Dakotanists are now going to wonder, "What about hi 'arrive here'?"  But
this h is from PMV *th, cf. OP thi 'arrive here'.  Another example is
*thu 'to copulate with'.  Dakotan has hu; OP has (wa)c^hi, diminutivized
from (wa)thi.

> But as I think we've said before, that H is probably an analogical
> development based on /hi/ 'arrive'.

It might be analogical.  I've read ahead to the Catawban data presented by
Blair.  The h here is a bit like the pesky extra *r (from my perspective,
anyway) in OP dhiNkhe.

> 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 [?].

Actually, I think there is some variability in duals (and vertitives) with
the (standard, nasal) ?-stems in Dakotan, if I remember the sum total of
forms in Buechel and Boas & Deloria.  So, I tend to think that ? in
Dakotan duals and vertitives and datives, and also in Winnebago second
persons in s^?- is to some extent analogical.

However, Jimm's Crow and Hidatsa examples drew my attention to the fact
that Crow and Hidatsa have -?-e at the end of 'wound'.  So I wonder to
what extent ?-stems might be able to have ? show up at either end, at
least in PMV.  I think that Mandan tends to have *C?V appearing as CV?,
too, in ejective sets, right?

Anyway, it appears that ? in ?-stems is real enough.  It's just not always
very consistent about where and whether it pops up.