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

[goodtracks at peoplepc.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:58 AM
Subject: "Let's See" (RE: LOOKING AT SOMETHING)


> 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!
>

Not quite, John.  Perhaps I did not write a clear analysis of the entry: 
waNda.  As I attempted to say and write it, it seemed that the entry could 
be from:

wa (something) + hiN- (me) + ada' (see).

I cannot account for the gloss "look at s.t.", which would be more likely to 
be:
wa + ada'.
Nor can I account for a nasual in the word.  And as is, it appears to be 
suggesting "something that sees me."

ada'  (See):
I...,     a'ta (a+ha+ ta)
you...,   ara'sda  (a+ra+sda)
he/she...,   ada'
we (dual)....,haN'da  (hiN+ada)

I'm still unclear how you read a "we" into the word or how the declarative 
male particle "ke" come into consideration here.
jimm

PS:  I do not believe the word to be an exclamation, although in the light 
that I am still unable to locate any textual context to support usage, I 
cannot disclaim it.
Also a number of the interjections from OP et.al., you mentioned, have 
eqivalents in IOM.




> Almost the end of the list would be the 'let's see' forms:
>
>> CH     h(N)ada          'we see...'
>> OP     hNda             '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 -n.
>
> 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 hnto, hntu '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.)
>
>
>
>