"Let's See" (RE: LOOKING AT SOMETHING)

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
JEK:
> > This might be a good place to recall the OP interjection (h)iNda(kHe)
> > 'let's see' which looks to me flat out like a borrowing of IO hiN-a-da
> > 'we see it' (not sure of the surface form) plus the IO male
> > declarative kHe. A bit like saying 'voi-la' in English, ...

The form that Whitman gives is haN'da from underlying hiN-a-da.  I think
Jimm actually gave it, too, in his note that prompted this!

In regard to the hiN set offered:

> The syllable /hiN-/ is the basis for interjections all across Siouan and
> extending down into the SE (e.g. Haas's Tunica).  I can't rule out a
> 'we' meaning in the Omaha term, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

> Note also that in this set only the [hìN] morph usually matches across
> subgroups.

I'd argue that this is precisely because it's not a set, but only a
collection of exclamations that begin with (h)i(N).  In fact,it seems to
be several sets combined bcause of a similar initial.

One form is hiN SURPRISE.

> LA    hìN                'whoops, interjection of disappointment'
>       hiná               'woman's interj. of surprise'
>       hinúu              '    "           "     "  happiness'

The additional Lakota example

>       hiNyaNka           'wait! hold on, imperative'

might be the same form with a positional 'to sit' appended.

OP hiN expressing surprise (an unpleasant one?) is attested separately.

The next two look like additional uses of hiN 'surprise', but may be a
separate evidential use.

> KS     hiNe              'question marker'
> TU     ehiN              'now...hortative'

Compare OP ahaN ~ ehaN m. vs. f. evidential expressing surprise.  The
vowel doesn't match, but I'm prepared to compare iN with aN tentatively in
evidentials on the theory that I have a lot to learn about them.

Next, there's a hesitation form without initial h:

> CR     i*                'um...'
> LA     ìNska             'um...'

This last is iN + ska, where ska is frequently a marker of doubt or
possibility, e.g., OP eska 'perhaps'.

Almost the end of the list would be the 'let's see' forms:

> CH     h(ìN)ada          'we see...'
> OP     hìNda             'let's see...'
> OS     hiNta             'let me...'

These are the forms I was citing, though the OP form might be more
completely represented as (h)iNda(kHe).  The h is there more often than
not.  (These are all from Dorsey.)  The Osage form is "hiNda' t.oNbe t.se"
or hiNta' htaNpe hce glossed 'now, let me see' in which htaNpe hce is
native Os form of 'I will see' (less the positional).  LaFlesche is
inclined to gloss hiNta' as 'right now', perhaps influenced by iNthaN
'now'.

Perhaps the most convicning argument for OP hiNdakhe cf. IO haNda khe in
my view is the khe.  The IO declarative is pretty distrinctive.

> BI      iNda              'well!'

> BI d does not match DH *t.  BI d comes from PSi *r and would actually be
> a better match for LA -ná.

This looks the same, but as you point out, the d is from *r, not *t unless
it is d written by accident for t, which I think happens.  If the form is
from *hiNra, it is more like the hiN alternatives, and the match with
La hina is very close - in form as well as meaning.

> Cf. also Tunica hínto, híntu 'come on!!' "Not a Tunica word" in
> Haas-215.

This seems a better match in form, though the gloss is different.  The
Tunica form is actually more reminiscent of the Lakota exclamation

haNta 'get away, be gone'  (I've heard 'scram' as a gloss.)