Funny W

[Rory M Larson]

> > I've been assuming that they were parallel too, but I'm a little
mystified on how *W => w across Dakotan, while *R => Da. d, Na. n, and La.
l.  By that division, I would have expected *W => Da. b, Na. m, and perhaps
La. w.  And I think Winnebago also has *W => w, while *R => d, doesn't it?

> It would be nice if parallels were perfect, but the original r/w were
typically in different phonological contexts.  I suspect that's a good part
of it.  Doesn't *W turn out as [b] in some Dakotan dialects?  (And in LA
it's [b] before /u/.)  As I recall, you have doublet instrumentals wa/ba
and maybe wo/bo??  Check both Buechel and Riggs.

You're right!  I was just going off the 'snow' term.  The "shooting" and
"cutting" instrumentals are indeed bo- and ba- in Dakota (Riggs), and wo-
and wa- in Lakhota (Buechel).  Now if Yankton, Assiniboine and Stoney turn
out to be mo- and ma-, the parallel will be satisfyingly close to perfect.


> > Why laryngeals?

> Actually more than one kind of consonant can be involved, but h and ? are
the ones that pull disappearing acts and remain the most likely candidates
in those cases where no other conditioning factor can easily be identified.
As I say n the handbook article, one has to be very careful not to use such
things as "finagle factors".

This argument assumes that there is an extra consonant involved.  If so, a
laryngeal might be most reasonable.  But postulating an extra consonant
that has since disappeared looks like a finagle to me.  If *W and *R were
nasally-released stops, then I don't think we need anything extra.

Rory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20061027/4aa67b84/attachment.html>