From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Mar 1 01:04:00 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:04:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 1 01:24:12 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:24:12 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 1 20:10:32 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:10:32 -0700 Subject: Language Documentation & Conservation Journal Message-ID: I have been asked to post the following to the list. The request seemed reasoanble, since some of you might not get it through other channels and it is of general interest. JEK ==================================== Announcement and Call for Papers Announcement The National Foreign Language Resource Center is pleased to announce its sponsorship of the new peer-reviewed, open-access journal, Language Documentation & Conservation (LD&C), to be published exclusively in electronic format by the University of Hawai'i Press. To learn more about this new journal, please visit http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/. Call for Papers The editors of LD&C seek manuscripts on all topics pertaining to language documentation and conservation, including, but not limited to, the goals of language documentation, data management, fieldwork methods, ethical issues, orthography design, reference grammar design, lexicography, methods of assessing ethnolinguistic vitality, archiving matters, language planning, areal survey reports, short field reports on endangered or underdocumented languages, reports on language maintenance, preservation, and revitalization efforts, plus software, hardware, and book reviews. Submissions to this new journal are now welcome and will be accepted for review on an ongoing basis. For more information on how to submit a paper to Language Documentation & Conservation, go to http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/submissions.html. Invitation to Subscribe To subscribe to LD&C, please click on http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/subscribe.html. It's free! Akiemi Glenn Managing Editor Language Documentation & Conservation http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 01:45:11 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:45:11 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names Message-ID: > "A minor footnote that occurs to me is that the -a, especially in the -(e)a version is probably the Algonquian animate proximate singular. Costa could confirm that and sources. (And I think we discussed the latter on the List.)" If that's the case, then I don't think Ojibwe/Ottawa could be a possible source of the loan. The Anishinaabe dialects have ost the final animate -a of Proto-Algonquian in most words. I'm not positive about whether Miami-Illinois or Fox retain them, but I have this vague recollection that at least Miami-Illinois did. The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. In Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix (short) -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard and Costa correctly. Thanks for the kind words about the entries in Bright's book. I was the author of the Dhegiha place names part. Discussion of the Akansea question is sort of split between the Arkansas and Kansas entries, I'm afraid. My own feeling is that all 5 Dhegiha-speaking tribes were in the Ohio Valley and probably never in the upper Midwest until the Omahas and Poncas moved North. This would have been between about the 7th and 12th centuries A.D. at least. I tried to show this in my article in Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, Bruce F. Benz. Published by Elsevier, San Diego, N.Y. 2006. The paper shows a definite dissociation of Dhegiha from Chiwere and Dakota at a fairly early date. Bob Rankin From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Mar 2 03:41:20 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:41:20 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > My own feeling is that all 5 Dhegiha-speaking tribes were in the Ohio Valley and probably never in the upper Midwest until the Omahas and Poncas moved North. This would have been between about the 7th and 12th centuries A.D. at least. I tried to show this in my article in Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, Bruce F. Benz. Published by Elsevier, San Diego, N.Y. 2006. The paper shows a definite dissociation of Dhegiha from Chiwere and Dakota at a fairly early date. This would put the Dhegihans closest to the Southeastern languages, wouldn't it? Any sense of the languages of these two groups having similarities due to proximity? I seem to find Biloxi easier than other Siouan languages outside of Dhegiha, but I'm not sure whether it's really similar to OP, or if it's just because both Biloxi and OP have substantial interlinear texts recorded by Dorsey. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Mar 2 07:56:13 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 23:56:13 -0800 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I assume we're still talking about 'Kansa' here? If so, the name in question has initial /a/ in Meskwaki and Sauk as well ('0' = theta): Meskwaki /akaasa/ Sauk /akaa0a/ However, compare: Shawnee /kaa0a/ 'Kansa, Kaw', /kaa0eemi/ 'pecan' & /kaa0eewi0iipi/ 'Ohio River' Miami-Illinois /kaansa/~/kaanse/ 'Kansa, Kaw' Illinois , pl. Miami 'pecan' You're right tho, that Sauk-Fox-Kickapoo normally has /o/ for ethnonyms where Miami-Illinois has /a/. In fact, Miami-Illinois does not have word-initial short /o/: 'Ojibwe, Chippewa': Miami /acipwia/ Sauk /ocipweewa/ Kickapoo /ocipwea/ Shawnee /hocipwe/ Ojibwe /ojibwe/ The final animate /-a/ of Proto-Algonquian is preserved in Miami-Illinois and Sauk-Fox-Kickapoo, and sporadically so in Shawnee. David > "A minor footnote that occurs to me is that the -a, especially in the -(e)a > version is probably the Algonquian animate proximate singular. Costa > could confirm that and sources. (And I think we discussed the latter on > the List.)" If that's the case, then I don't think Ojibwe/Ottawa could be a > possible source of the loan. The Anishinaabe dialects have lost the final > animate -a of Proto-Algonquian in most words. I'm not positive about whether > Miami-Illinois or Fox retain them, but I have this vague recollection that at > least Miami-Illinois did. > > The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. In > Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix (short) > -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard and Costa > correctly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 16:31:05 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:31:05 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 16:41:50 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:41:50 -0800 Subject: Biloxi update Message-ID: Hi all, Just wanted to update everyone on what I'm doing with Biloxi these days. I'm working with Bob Rankin this semester in an Independent Study on "Focus and Topicalization in Biloxi," which also will deal somewhat with the apparent switch reference system, not as the main focus, but rather in conjunction with one of the topicalization (?) markers that is also used in the SR system. I am analyzing several of the texts in this regard. I am switching to KU's Anthropology Dept. doctoral program this Fall, and it looks like I'll be able to use my revised Biloxi dictionary as an MA thesis over there. So I continue to work on that as well. Also, if anyone missed it who's interested, my paper titled "A Reanalysis of the Dorsey-Swanton U-circumflex and U-breve in Biloxi" has been published and posted to the Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics (KWPL) accessible through the university web site. It's the first paper in the newest edition. Dave --------------------------------- Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Mar 2 18:16:25 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:16:25 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <378100.10015.qm@web53807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. In that case, what does "first mention" have to do with it? I was looking a little at the first story, "Rabbit and Towe (Frenchman)", and it looks like the -di not only is not always used with first mention as you say, but that it can be used repeatedly after first mention as well. Am I misunderstanding something here? Any thoughts on -di as a marker both on nouns and verbs? Or how it compares with the -yaN (or possibly -aN) noun marker to which it is sometimes postfixed? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 18:19:40 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:19:40 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: I'm not fond of the "free variation" part. If it's a productive morpheme, it is by definition not in free variation. If it's used productively there has to be a semantic association worth searching for. I guess I'd try listing out all the exceptional cases as a first step. I'll need to check the comparative database again to see whether *-re or *-ri is a better bet. It depends on what the regular correspondences are for final e/i in the various languages. We know Biloxi has vowel raising, so it can't be probative. The question is whether Mandan has lowering or Hidatsa has raising. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 10:31 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Biloxi nominal markers Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory ________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 18:31:41 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:31:41 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names Message-ID: > This would put the Dhegihans closest to the Southeastern languages, wouldn't it? Any sense of the languages of these two groups having similarities due to proximity? This is what the article is about. > I seem to find Biloxi easier than other Siouan languages outside of Dhegiha, but I'm not sure whether it's really similar to OP, or if it's just because both Biloxi and OP have substantial interlinear texts recorded by Dorsey. The latter, I suspect. To me virtually any MVS language is more like Dhegiha than any of the OVS languages. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 22:27:04 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:27:04 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, As you can tell, there's still a lot to be done here and I'm in the process, slowly as I have time, of trying to sort through the data. You're right, -di not only does not always occur with first mention but it also sometimes occurs AFTER first mention. (This may relate to Mandan -(r)e, now that I think about it, which also appears to come not just in first-mention focus position but also in post-first-mention topic position. Perhaps Sara can help us out here re: Mandan?) I'm aware that -di also occurs on verbs and it may be a type of nominalizer, but I really haven't focused on its use yet as a verbal suffix. It appears that -yaN is usually used as a topic marker. Often the same noun or entity that bears -di (or 0-marking) on first mention bears -yaN when mentioned later. (But not always, AND, as you say, sometimes -di occurs again). I haven't begun to figure out the -yaNdi compound suffix and when it is used. There's also the little issue of the -k(aN) suffix, which may or may not be related to the supposed SR marker kaN and may be some type of oblique marker. As y'all can see, this ain't easy! That's why I've devoted a whole semester working with Bob to try and sort things out. Most of these suffixes don't seem to occur in other Siouan languages and so far Muskogean hasn't been too helpful either. The big question remains whether these suffix-markers are somehow Biloxi innovations or leftovers of the proto-language which dropped out in other languages but were retained in Biloxi (as appears to be the case with -di/PS -ri). I'm basing my theories of -di and -yaN so far on what I've observed through careful analysis of several texts--what happens most often when (using the law of averages). It's interesting to note however that there are whole texts where few or none of these markers or suffixes occur and others where they are quite consistent with my theories. How much of this is syntax vs. perhaps formal discourse or oratory tradition in storytelling I'm not sure. I welcome any suggestions anyone may have for reading related to focus-topicalization and discourse analysis (in oral tradition or mythology). Thanks! Dave Rory M Larson wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. In that case, what does "first mention" have to do with it? I was looking a little at the first story, "Rabbit and Towe (Frenchman)", and it looks like the -di not only is not always used with first mention as you say, but that it can be used repeatedly after first mention as well. Am I misunderstanding something here? Any thoughts on -di as a marker both on nouns and verbs? Or how it compares with the -yaN (or possibly -aN) noun marker to which it is sometimes postfixed? Rory --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:19:39 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:19:39 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Message-ID: This is not really a Siouan issue, but it is peripherally connected. We've discussed inclusive and exclusive 'we' on the list some. Inclusive = +me +you ?somebody else Exclusive = +me -you +somebody else I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in English. I christen it "recusive." Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else as in "We need to take out the trash." John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Mar 2 23:30:22 2007 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:30:22 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:41:10 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:41:10 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > If this associationa is valid, and /moso/ => /ofo/, doesn't that seem to > confirm that the shift from Siouan /s/ to Ofo /f/ took place fairly > recently, i.e. roughly 17th to 19th century? That was what I was wondering, too. > Do we have any definite Ofo vocabulary recorded prior to Swanton? Not that I'm aware of. As far as nasal variations ouspi- ~ onspi-, while this might reflect the nasalization implicit in moso- (/woNso/), it is also true that u tends to vary with n in early printing. There are several Siouan possibilities for "pere" ~ "pele." The final -a would be an Algonquian morpheme. I think Siouan possibilities would be PMV *pre 'lake' (La ble, OP ne, etc., where Dhegiha and Chiwere-winnebago have *Re < *pre) and something like PMV *preh- 'thin, flat'. I seem to recall OP bdhekka < PMV *preh-ka. It's not quite kosher to think in terms of general Siouan sets when dealing with a particular known language, because not all Siouan langauges attest all Siouan stems. Quite the contrary, of course. But, especially when we are dealing with old forms of a language, or any forms of a poorly known language, we can probably adduce reconstructions and then carry them forward to a hypothetical later form. In essence we have a double-starred hypothesis concerning Ofo vocabulary. I'm not sure at the moment what the expected Ofo forms of such stems would be. Since the name is attested only in non-Ofo, non-Siouan contexts - only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? - I guess we can't necessarily assume the morphemes are of Ofo origin, even if they are of Siouan origin. However, we are assuming the name is subject to Ofo sound laws and keeps getting borrowed out of Ofo into other languages as a term for what we take to be them, so we have to assume it was at least current in Ofo usage. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:47:45 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:47:45 -0700 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. > In Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix > (short) -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard > and Costa correctly. ... For those who are feeling confused, here Bob has included the Siouan list in an ongoing off-list query from "Red Newt " about state names. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 01:15:43 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:15:43 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Message-ID: Or the "accusive", as in: "Let's you take out the trash." or "Let's you and him take out the trash." Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Alan H. Hartley Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 5:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Mar 3 01:19:56 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:19:56 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <378100.10015.qm@web53807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Mar 3 01:30:16 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:30:16 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <20070302222704.51342.qmail@web53810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > As you can tell, there's still a lot to be done here and I'm in the > process, slowly as I have time, of trying to sort through the data. > You're right, -di not only does not always occur with first mention but > it also sometimes occurs AFTER first mention. (This may relate to > Mandan -(r)e, now that I think about it, which also appears to come not > just in first-mention focus position but also in post-first-mention > topic position. Perhaps Sara can help us out here re: Mandan?) I'm > aware that -di also occurs on verbs and it may be a type of nominalizer, > but I really haven't focused on its use yet as a verbal suffix. I'm not positive the -(d)i on nouns and the -(d)i on verbs is the same thing. It might be, or there might be several -(d)i's after verbs, one nominalizing, and one declarative. As far as explaining where -(d)i appears and doesn't appear with nouns, it seems to me that there are several possible ways to look at the problem. You've looked at discourse conditioning. You might also look at what follows, i.e., morphosyntactic conditioning. In addition, you might take a typological approach. Look at Uto-Aztecan and Caddoan, etc., and see what the contexts are there for the absolutive markers of those language families. The odds are good that -e will behave in similar ways. This is anlogous with looking in the back of the book for the answer so you can work backward from it to the process. Of course, you'd be looking at the answer in a different text book from the one in which you find the problem, but ... You might also look at Niger-Congo grammars to see what the contexts are for inclusion and omission of class prefixes or of partial reduplications of class prefixes (0 vs. ba- or ba- vs. aba-). Another somewhat analogous sitiuation is short forms of adjectives vs. long in Baltic and Slavic. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 01:35:30 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:35:30 -0600 Subject: Bright's placenames vol. Message-ID: A little sloppy editing. Bill had a lot on his mind during this period. My name's on the back cover and also right after the title p. as a consulting editor. I think I must have become "Maude Rowe" in the contributors list. I haven't gone through the whole book for the purpose of ego stroking, but there are some "p.c." notations, e.g., under "Arkansas". Entries are alphabetical, not by tribe or state. He sent me sections on Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska to go over, but, of course, most of my effort was on Quapaw, Kaw and Osage names. I think basically we all did a pretty good job on the Siouan names. I was MUCH happier with them than I was with the Muskogean names, which include quite a bit more speculation. Bob ________________________________ From: Alan H. Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:13 PM To: Koontz John E Cc: Red Newt; Rankin, Robert L Subject: Re: Etymologies of some state names Koontz John E wrote: > I'm puzzled here. Is there a Dhegiha placenames part? Are we thinking of > two different books? I was thinking of one organzied by states. I'm > pretty sure all contributors are named, but not necessarily by entry. > I'm pretty sure I was a contributor, too, at various points, for > Mississippi Valley Siouan languages generally, but mostly Dhegiha. > However, I only commented on particular names in lists arranged by states. > I should point out that Bob was also probably a contributor for all of > Mississippi Valley Siouan, Southeastern Siouan, and actually probably also > for Southeastern languages generally, Siouan and otherwise. In Bright's _Native American Placenames of the United States_, there's no separate Dhegiha part and no arrangement by states: the dictionary is entirely alphabetical by placename. Contributors are listed in Acknowledgments in the front matter, not by entry or specialty. Koontz is listed, Rankin is not; neither is cited in References. Alan From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 3 01:44:42 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:44:42 -0800 Subject: Accusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 'Let's you children all wash your hands, and put on your coats, too.' I think I have this in Osage somewhere. Carolyn From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:16 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Or the "accusive", as in: "Let's you take out the trash." or "Let's you and him take out the trash." Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Alan H. Hartley Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 5:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43 PM From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 02:14:49 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:14:49 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: Then there is the potential connection of this morpheme with the lexical demonstrative *re: and *Re: 'this, here, now' contrasting with *?e: alone. It's possible that *?e: was primary and that the forms with *r/R are/were lexicalized doublet allomorphs. Carter postulated epenthesis of /r/ in -re only following long vowels in Mandan. But, of course, there is the argument that the -e that occurs otherwise is epenthetic too. I think that is a holdover from the older, Dakotacentric analyses of Siouan generally and is probably not at all germaine outside of Mississippi Valley languages (where it has lost its meaning as a specifier). Mauricio calls it a kind of article tentatively, but also mentions the epenthesis theory. I tend to think of it as perhaps having more of a discourse function rather than a purely morphosyntactic one. The impression I get from working with Dave on the Biloxi matter (just watching him do all the work, actually) is that it involves focus more than just definiteness. But heck, what do I know? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:19 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Biloxi nominal markers On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 02:23:58 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:23:58 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? That seems to be the case, involving perhaps only one Ofo mouth. The last paragraph in Swanton's historical introduction is worth quoting: "After 1784 no mention of this tribe appears in histories or books of travel, and it was naturally supposed that it had long been extinct, when in November, 1908, the writer had the good fortune to find an Indian woman belonging to this tribe, of which she is the last representative, who remembered a surprising number of words of her language, when it is considered that the rest of her people had died when she was a girl. She appears to have learned most of these from her old grandmother, who was also responsible for the positive statement that the name of their tribe was Ofo. This woman, Rosa Pierrette, is living with the Tunica remnant near Marksville, La., and her husband belongs to the Tunica tribe. Already in May, 1907, the writer had heard from the Tunica chief of the comparatively late existence of representatives of the Ofo, but from the fact that the one word this man could remember contained an initial f, it was assumed that it belonged to the Muskhogean linguistic family. It was therefore a surprising and most interesting discovery that the Ofogoula of French writers must be added to the Biloxi as a second representative of the Siouan family in the region of the lower Mississippi. In the use of an f it is peculiar, but its affinities appear to be first with the Biloxi and the eastern Siouan tribes rather than with the nearer Quapaw and the other Siouan dialects of the West." The preceding history Swanton gives suggests that we are dealing with two separate names for what are presumably Ofos. The earliest mention of them is supposed to be from 1699 and 1700, when French explorers became aware of a complex of about six or seven villages speaking at least three different languages about four leagues up the Yazoo River in northeastern Mississippi. One village was the Tunica (Tonica/Toumika), another the Ofo-gula (Opocoula/Offogoula, with -gula being the Mobilian ending for "people"), and another the Uspi (Ouispe/Oussipe/Ounspik). Other names given included Taposa, Chaquesauma, Outapa/Ouitoupa, Thysia, Yasoux and Coroa. The languages included Jakou (Yazoo), Ounspik (Ofo ?), and Toumika (Tunica). During the 18th century, these people seem to have declined and consolidated. In 1721, a village of "Yasous mixed with Curoas and Ofogoulas" is mentioned. In 1722, four groups are listed as having settlements on the Yazoo River: the Yasons, Courois, Offogoula, and Onspee nations, with a total population of only about 250 persons. This is the last record of the Uspi that Swanton mentions. In 1727, there are supposed to be three villages on the lower Yazoo, in which three different languages are spoken. These seem to be the Yazoo, the Koroa, and the Ofo-gula. Presumably the Uspi joined with the Ofo-gula in the mid 1720s. In 1729, the Yazoo and Koroa joined the Natchez uprising against the French, and pressured the Ofo-gula to join them. The latter resisted, and withdrew to join the Tunica, who were staunchly pro-French. By 1739, they were a small tribe of fourteen or fifteen warriors who had recently settled next to Fort Rosalie, under frequent assault by the Chickasaw, whose persecution of them continued at least until 1758. In 1739 and 1764, they are named as Ossogoulas. Apparently whatever they were using for that [s/f] phoneme, it either varied by speaker or was something that could be understood either way by the French. The connection of the Uspi with the Ofo is that the Tunica name for the Ofo was Us^pi. But this seems to have been the name of a separate group that was absorbed into the Ofo, probably speaking a closely related language. If I'm understanding this right, the Uspi name is probably not derived from moso-/ofo. (This is a reanalysis based entirely on Swanton's brief historical discussion of the Ofo. There may be other facts I don't yet know about that may modify that story!) Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 02:37:05 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:37:05 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: I think that about says it. The Yazoos and Coroas were apparently Natchezan-speaking, according to explorers. Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. One of his attested names, Ounspik (or something like that) had already lost the medial /o/ (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). It seems at least that /f/ does not simply represent a speech defect of Rosa Pierrette (or Pierrite -- it seems to have more than one spelling). Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 8:23 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos > only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? That seems to be the case, involving perhaps only one Ofo mouth. The last paragraph in Swanton's historical introduction is worth quoting: "After 1784 no mention of this tribe appears in histories or books of travel, and it was naturally supposed that it had long been extinct, when in November, 1908, the writer had the good fortune to find an Indian woman belonging to this tribe, of which she is the last representative, who remembered a surprising number of words of her language, when it is considered that the rest of her people had died when she was a girl. She appears to have learned most of these from her old grandmother, who was also responsible for the positive statement that the name of their tribe was Ofo. This woman, Rosa Pierrette, is living with the Tunica remnant near Marksville, La., and her husband belongs to the Tunica tribe. Already in May, 1907, the writer had heard from the Tunica chief of the comparatively late existence of representatives of the Ofo, but from the fact that the one word this man could remember contained an initial f, it was assumed that it belonged to the Muskhogean linguistic family. It was therefore a surprising and most interesting discovery that the Ofogoula of French writers must be added to the Biloxi as a second representative of the Siouan family in the region of the lower Mississippi. In the use of an f it is peculiar, but its affinities appear to be first with the Biloxi and the eastern Siouan tribes rather than with the nearer Quapaw and the other Siouan dialects of the West." The preceding history Swanton gives suggests that we are dealing with two separate names for what are presumably Ofos. The earliest mention of them is supposed to be from 1699 and 1700, when French explorers became aware of a complex of about six or seven villages speaking at least three different languages about four leagues up the Yazoo River in northeastern Mississippi. One village was the Tunica (Tonica/Toumika), another the Ofo-gula (Opocoula/Offogoula, with -gula being the Mobilian ending for "people"), and another the Uspi (Ouispe/Oussipe/Ounspik). Other names given included Taposa, Chaquesauma, Outapa/Ouitoupa, Thysia, Yasoux and Coroa. The languages included Jakou (Yazoo), Ounspik (Ofo ?), and Toumika (Tunica). During the 18th century, these people seem to have declined and consolidated. In 1721, a village of "Yasous mixed with Curoas and Ofogoulas" is mentioned. In 1722, four groups are listed as having settlements on the Yazoo River: the Yasons, Courois, Offogoula, and Onspee nations, with a total population of only about 250 persons. This is the last record of the Uspi that Swanton mentions. In 1727, there are supposed to be three villages on the lower Yazoo, in which three different languages are spoken. These seem to be the Yazoo, the Koroa, and the Ofo-gula. Presumably the Uspi joined with the Ofo-gula in the mid 1720s. In 1729, the Yazoo and Koroa joined the Natchez uprising against the French, and pressured the Ofo-gula to join them. The latter resisted, and withdrew to join the Tunica, who were staunchly pro-French. By 1739, they were a small tribe of fourteen or fifteen warriors who had recently settled next to Fort Rosalie, under frequent assault by the Chickasaw, whose persecution of them continued at least until 1758. In 1739 and 1764, they are named as Ossogoulas. Apparently whatever they were using for that [s/f] phoneme, it either varied by speaker or was something that could be understood either way by the French. The connection of the Uspi with the Ofo is that the Tunica name for the Ofo was Us^pi. But this seems to have been the name of a separate group that was absorbed into the Ofo, probably speaking a closely related language. If I'm understanding this right, the Uspi name is probably not derived from moso-/ofo. (This is a reanalysis based entirely on Swanton's brief historical discussion of the Ofo. There may be other facts I don't yet know about that may modify that story!) Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 03:20:42 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:20:42 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > One of his attested names, Ounspik (or something like that) had already lost the medial /o/ All of them but Oussipe put the s next to the p. > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 03:55:36 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:55:36 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: > 0 => r / V = __ e > I'm not positive the -(d)i on nouns and the -(d)i on verbs is the same thing. It might be, or there might be several -(d)i's after verbs, one nominalizing, and one declarative. I like these ideas, John! If we suppose that Biloxi -di is from Siouan e, then we might be able to offer two forms of e, one for nouns and one for verbs. For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's older brother HE shot a deer". For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? That would probably be a little too simple for recorded Biloxi, but perhaps as a hypothetical starting point? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 06:27:10 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:27:10 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, According to the Siouan comparative dictionary that I looked at with Bob, the PS focus marker is shown as -ri. This of course perfectly matches -di in Biloxi and -ri in Hidatsa. Was that -(r)i considered epenthetic in PS? > This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. > I've always thought this proposal about Polynesian roots ending in consonants seems a bit strange given that many of the languages, e.g., Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori, don't allow words to end in consonants at all. Looking at a Polynesian root ending in a consonant just seems, well, shocking. Dave Koontz John E wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. --------------------------------- Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 15:08:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:08:19 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: > Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. > Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 19:39:32 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:39:32 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>> Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. >> Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. Yes. If Swanton's idea is valid, I would expect the -pe/-pi to be Ofo, since it was added to the native Ofo ethnonym to distinguish one village of Ofo-ic speakers from a neighboring one. In that context, the Ofo themselves would have been most conscious of the distinction, and would probably have invented the term. Outsiders would have picked it up from them. For a meaning, perhaps 'good' would work for pi: Mosopelea/Uspi = the "Good" Ofo. The (very slender) Ofo dictionary doesn't have pi listed for 'good', but the Biloxi dictionary does. Continuing this idea, the Mosopelea should be the ancestors of the Uspi, but not of the Ofo-gula. Perhaps the Ofo-gula were already living on the Yazoo River when the closely-related Mosopelea/Uspi migrated down the Mississippi and moved in with them? This would explain why the two groups were originally considered as distinct tribes. Then, if this were the case, the s->f shift must have taken place before 1700, and only in the original Ofo-gula community. The Mosopelea/Uspi would not have participated in this, and hence kept their esses. The later alternation between Ofo-gula and Oso-gula, with the latter term appearing in 1739 and 1764, would be due to the fact that the Uspi had merged into the Ofo-gula in the 1720s, and that their pronunciation of the name and the language still used /s/: Oso-gula. If the French writers happened to get the name from a true Ofo-gula, the f would be used; if from an incorporated Uspi, it would be pronounced and spelled with an s. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Mar 4 16:40:34 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:40:34 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: I think, unfortunately, that it's too much to expect ethnonyms to have intrinsic meaning. 'Baxoje' doesn't, 'KkaaNze' doesn't, 'Waz^az^e' doesn't, 'PpaNkka' doesn't. Why should Mosopelea necessarily? The terms often get folk etymologies ("dusty noses", "wind people", etc.), but these were probably never real. When names (or any words) are borrowed by speakers of a totally different language, morphological analysis of the donor language is not ordinarily performed -- a convenient gestalt is simply taken, often truncating the original term if it was several syllables. For me at any rate, it's 'way too late to try to second guess the Tunicas on why they adopted the chunk they did. Since truncation usually comes off the right-hand side of the name, I assume the Ofos had already lost the initial labial (Swanton's progression of names down the Ohio and Mississippi confirms this, and the same loss in Biloxi suggests it was very early). I strongly doubt that any non-OVS language lost initial labial sonorants spontaneously, so, to me it all pretty strongly supports identification of Swanton's ethnonyms and Tunica ushpi with the Ofos. ________________________________ >>> Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. >> Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 01:07:34 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:07:34 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > For me at any rate, it's 'way too late to try to second guess the Tunicas on why they adopted the chunk they did. Since truncation usually comes off the right-hand side of the name, I assume the Ofos had already lost the initial labial (Swanton's progression of names down the Ohio and Mississippi confirms this, and the same loss in Biloxi suggests it was very early). I strongly doubt that any non-OVS language lost initial labial sonorants spontaneously, so, to me it all pretty strongly supports identification of Swanton's ethnonyms and Tunica ushpi with the Ofos. I'm not following this argument, or quite where it's directed. First, if loss of the initial labial /m/ is a single event in Ofo-Biloxi, and if Mosopelea is the ancestral name of the Ofo, then the 17th century Mosopelea would have to be ancestral to the Biloxi as well. Second, I don't see why we are assuming that Ofo-ic speakers were an ethnic singularity at this time. Swanton's account makes it clear that the Uspe and the Ofo-gula were two separate groups in the period from 1699 to 1722. The Ofo-gula can certainly be identified with the Ofo as represented linguistically by Rosa Pierrette. The Tunica knew her group as the Ushpi, which can equally certainly be identified with the Uspe. Either name could be derived from Mosopelea, but not both at once. Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. This does not mean that Ofo cannot be cognate to Moso-. Given that the Tunica knew Rosa Pierrette's Ofo group as Uus^pii, the Ofo and the Uspe must have been the same kind of people to them. It seems quite plausible that multiple groups of Ofo-ic speakers existed prior to the 17th century. They may have had a common ethnonym, and that ethnonym may have been something like *moso or *woNso. In fact, this might have been the ethnonym for the entire OVS group. If Ofo-gula and Uspe represented separate OVS dialects, and the Uspe/Mosopelea had just recently moved in from Ohio, then Ofo is very likely more closely related to Biloxi than to the original Mosopelea/Uspe tongue. Could you remind me again: in OVS, what is the relationship tree of Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi? Any sense on the time depth? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 01:51:29 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:51:29 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. Make that *woNs at pee ~ *wuNs at pii > [...] we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. Make that *moNswape(l)e ~ *woNs at pee. Sorry for the error! Rory > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 5 09:17:36 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:17:36 +0000 Subject: Bright's placenames vol. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does any one know if the paper back edition has come out? I wanted to buy the book, but the hardback is a bit expensive, mind you not much more than most such specialist books. Maybe I should treat myself. Bruce "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: A little sloppy editing. Bill had a lot on his mind during this period. My name's on the back cover and also right after the title p. as a consulting editor. I think I must have become "Maude Rowe" in the contributors list. I haven't gone through the whole book for the purpose of ego stroking, but there are some "p.c." notations, e.g., under "Arkansas". Entries are alphabetical, not by tribe or state. He sent me sections on Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska to go over, but, of course, most of my effort was on Quapaw, Kaw and Osage names. I think basically we all did a pretty good job on the Siouan names. I was MUCH happier with them than I was with the Muskogean names, which include quite a bit more speculation. Bob ________________________________ From: Alan H. Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:13 PM To: Koontz John E Cc: Red Newt; Rankin, Robert L Subject: Re: Etymologies of some state names Koontz John E wrote: > I'm puzzled here. Is there a Dhegiha placenames part? Are we thinking of > two different books? I was thinking of one organzied by states. I'm > pretty sure all contributors are named, but not necessarily by entry. > I'm pretty sure I was a contributor, too, at various points, for > Mississippi Valley Siouan languages generally, but mostly Dhegiha. > However, I only commented on particular names in lists arranged by states. > I should point out that Bob was also probably a contributor for all of > Mississippi Valley Siouan, Southeastern Siouan, and actually probably also > for Southeastern languages generally, Siouan and otherwise. In Bright's _Native American Placenames of the United States_, there's no separate Dhegiha part and no arrangement by states: the dictionary is entirely alphabetical by placename. Contributors are listed in Acknowledgments in the front matter, not by entry or specialty. Koontz is listed, Rankin is not; neither is cited in References. Alan --------------------------------- Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Mon Mar 5 19:59:48 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:59:48 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Sun 3/4/2007 7:51 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. Make that *woNs at pee ~ *wuNs at pii > [...] we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. Make that *moNswape(l)e ~ *woNs at pee. Sorry for the error! Rory > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Mar 5 20:16:06 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:16:06 -0800 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's not Algonquianist usage -- that's French missionary practice of the 17th & 18th centuries. They used it for Algonquian languages, but they also used it when writing Iroquoian languages. As Bob points out, it's equivalent to French 'ou' -- thus, it's primarily used for /w/, /o(:)/ or /u(:)/, depending on context, but sometimes it's even used for /w/ + schwa, or schwa + /w/. Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. Dave >> Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been >> thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that >> it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is >> what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 20:37:54 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:37:54 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. Thanks! That should make the original 1673 "Mosopelea" reference something like *moNsupe(l)e ~ *woNsupe(l)e. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clarkbatson at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 00:27:55 2007 From: clarkbatson at hotmail.com (Clark Batson) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:27:55 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you�ll love. Compare products and save at MSN� Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 From FurbeeL at missouri.edu Tue Mar 6 15:04:48 2007 From: FurbeeL at missouri.edu (Furbee, Louanna) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:04:48 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: Hi Mr. Batson, Lots of native american languages have sound distinctions that are hard to represent using just the ordinary alphabet that works more or less ok for European languages like English. So the dots and squiggles are taken (as needed) from the international phonetic alphabet (with which any language sound can be represented - it is a BIG bunch of symbols and modifications of those symbols) for each native american language's alphabet. It is always a struggle to select a sort of minimum set to represent the sounds properly, and at the same time, not be overwhelming. So, about learning linguistics: One of the nicest introductions I know of (it is not complete but a great start) is a little book called LANGUAGE: THE BASICS by R. L. Trask. You can order it from Amazon, they have new and used copies available starting at $1.98 (of course shipping will be more than that). If you get into this field,you could later get a textbook for "doing" linguistics, and a favorite is one by Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams, the title of which is AN INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE. It is $85 new from Amazon and there are used copies of it from $55. Now I have to tell you, it is best to learn the "doing" of linguistics in consultation with a linguist, so I suggest you try to locate a linguist who does research on your language. I don't know wazhazhe, or who might work on it, but if you will write to Victor Golla (vkg1 at humboldt.edu), the editor of the newsletter of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, he can look up in the society's data base who might be working on it, or put your request in the Newsletter. I'm copying in Golla with this message. Much good fortune in pursuing knowledge of your heritage language. Louanna Furbee -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Clark Batson Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 6:27 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Linguist As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save at MSN® Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 From rankin at ku.edu Tue Mar 6 17:03:22 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:03:22 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: The history of "8" as [w] or [u], French "ou" is interesting. It's Greek actually. It is an upsilon written on top of an omicron. In Greek the upsilon had taken on the pronunciation of [u-umlaut], so the actual sound [u], as in 'boot' had to be written as a digraph. As in French and some Slavic, the digraph was chosen, but unlike those languages, the Greeks elected to write it for a period of time as a single symbol, with one of the letters over the other. This 8-like symbol (with the open top) was also taken into the Cyrillic alphabet and this explains why [u] is written with a symbol that looks like in Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, etc. Their Y is derived from the Greek 8. I'm afraid I can't elucidate the colonial French usage of it during the 17th century, but that's its source. bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 2:16 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos That's not Algonquianist usage -- that's French missionary practice of the 17th & 18th centuries. They used it for Algonquian languages, but they also used it when writing Iroquoian languages. As Bob points out, it's equivalent to French 'ou' -- thus, it's primarily used for /w/, /o(:)/ or /u(:)/, depending on context, but sometimes it's even used for /w/ + schwa, or schwa + /w/. Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. Dave >> Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been >> thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that >> it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is >> what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 6 19:45:30 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 19:45:30 +0000 Subject: Linguist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The dots and squiggles are a difficult one and the easy way is to ask a linguist if you can find one, because they are used differently for different languages very often. For the theory I read Sapir's 'Language" when I was an undergraduate and before I ever became a linguist and found it facinating and informative. I think the dots and squiggles shouldn't be too much of a problem with Wazhazhe, because as i remember it the sound system isn't too complicated. Best of luck Bruce Clark Batson wrote: As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 22:06:35 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:06:35 -0800 Subject: Calling Brian Gordon Message-ID: Sorry to send this to the whole list, but I don't know Brian's private email address. Brian, I'm told you did a paper a while back on definiteness in Omaha-Ponca. Would you be willing to share a copy of that with me? As you may already know from my prior emails, I am working on Biloxi definiteness, focus, and topicalization. Thanks. Dave --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 00:17:28 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:17:28 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: I'd be happy to help you out with those dots and squiggles as they apply to wazhazhe. The dots you refer to must be those in La Flesche. I do have an explanation of how the orthography of the LF dictionary (except for a number of errors and a number of Omaha words) compares with the standard Siouanist usage in Osage Grammar p.80. There are only a few characters (including a couple of squiggles, and nasal "tails" on the vowels) to learn for Osage that would seem unlike English characters, and I'd be happy to help you learn them. You can call me at my office in Tulsa, Inter Lingua Inc. Carolyn Quintero -----Original Message----- >From: Clark Batson >Sent: Mar 5, 2007 6:27 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Linguist > >As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows >nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and >squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer >suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of >linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that >goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. > >Clark Batson > >_________________________________________________________________ >Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® >Shopping. >http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:25:11 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:25:11 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). > > Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. In ou(n)spik? I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that has a k there. Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:19:04 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:19:04 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > ... The impression I get from working with Dave on the Biloxi matter > (just watching him do all the work, actually) is that it involves focus > more than just definiteness. Of course, there's definitely something in the line of focus going on with the more independent -e ~ e that turns up widely in Mississippi Valley, including Omaha-Ponca. That's quite clearly syncrhonically distinct form noun suffixes per se in MV, but I think it is clearly the same element found in contexts like Dakotan miye, niye, etc., where the intrusive -r- surfaces. I suppose we could see archaic Dakota forms like thas^uNke 'his (particular) horse' vs. s^uNka 'horse' as thas^unk=e 'the one that is his horse'. But along the lines I'm thinking this would then mean that the -(r)e on nouns in Dhegiha and IO and would be essentially a bleached focus marker reduced to noun morphology and at the same time occuring in a functioning, non-moribund capacity as -e FOCUS in forms like e-e 'it is the one that' and numerous other contexts. Further afield, e.g., in Mandan and Biloxi it would be more lively and transparent in meaning in all contexts. I tend to think that the demonstrative e 'the aforesaid; it' is the same thing, too. I know you don't trust protean morphemes like this, but we do have some others, e.g., -gaN in OP, that show that a piece of morphology can get caught up and used and reused in various ways, productive and non-productive. > But heck, what do I know? Usually quite a lot in my experience. :-) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:30:32 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:30:32 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can > be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for > clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's > older brother HE shot a deer". Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. > For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old > declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages > I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be > responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. I bewlive -e occurs after verbs, too, in Biloxi, when it is the clause is focussed. I still see the plural markers as something else, even when they mark proximate singulars. > So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and > -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? Or, if it followed a verb where a declarative wasn't appropriate, then it could be a nominalizer or clause final focus marker. Apart from our perennial divergence on *=pi we seem to be on the same page! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 05:10:22 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:10:22 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <20070303062710.27381.qmail@web53810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > According to the Siouan comparative dictionary that I looked at with > Bob, the PS focus marker is shown as -ri. This of course perfectly > matches -di in Biloxi and -ri in Hidatsa. Was that -(r)i considered > epenthetic in PS? By some, and by others not. Where cases like this are involved, the ms of the CSD is essentially a work in progress, and definitely a delicate and perhaps not entirely consistent compromise between different views of different people or perhaps even of the same people at different times. > I've always thought this proposal about Polynesian roots ending in > consonants seems a bit strange given that many of the languages, e.g., > Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori, don't allow words to end in consonants at > all. Looking at a Polynesian root ending in a consonant just seems, > well, shocking. (My apologies for this side excursion, valuable in the Siouan context mainly for the parallel with occasional "extra" consonants appearing between Siouan roots and following elements. JEK) Yes, of course, final -C is completely absent in all Polynesian languages so far as I am aware. All original CVCVC roots are reduced to CVCV form. But I think it's well established though that the -C in the CVCV-Cia passives of these CVCV roots is in principle a reflex of the final -C in the original CVCVC forms. I believe the evidence for this is that the CVCVC form (or at least the final -C) is retained elsewhere in Austronesian. Of course, the analogical changes in -C of -Cia, or the paradigmatic leveling and shifting of -Cia allomorphs, however you like to think of it, results in the "attested -C" being unreliable in specific cases. If you find -t some places and -k others, you have to resolve the situation by looking outside of Polynesian. I'm mainly aware of this matter, I have to confess, as a result of exercises in morphology books. All things David Rood used with his classes I was in, I think. The examples stuck with me because of an interest in Polynesian languages. A few Net references: http://crlc.anu.edu.au/seminars/series2_2001.html > Andrew Pawley: Proto-Polynesian *-Cia ABSTRACT: Individual Polynesian > languages generally have between six and 12 suffixes having the shape > -Cia (where C is a variable consonant), -ia, -a, -na, or -ina. In most > languages the suffixes can be considered alternants of a single suffix > (cover symbol -CIA). Among contemporary languages -CIA suffixes exhibit > the following range of functions, though no one language has the full > range: (i) marks imperative mood, (ii) derives passive verb, ... Pawley concentrates on the function of the suffix. For a discussion of the allomorphy and its source in a limited context, see http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers/Van%20den%20Berg-Vitu%20passive.pdf (Discussing Vitu, non-Polynesian) > Rene van den Berg: From a historical perspective, this division between > the three transitive verb classes is phonologically based. The verb > roots in class 1 and 2 originally ended in in vowel, to which the object > suffixes were directly attached. The verb roots in class 3, on the other > hand, ended in a consonant, to which the Proto Oceanic transitivizing > suffix *i was attached, followed by object suffixes. When final > consonants were lost, the protected final consonants in these verb forms > were retained as thematic consonants in presentday Vitu. Although there > are a number of exceptions, this seems to offer a plausible analysis. > Interestingly, most loanwords from Tok Pisin take the allomorph nia, > e.g. peninia .to paint. (TP penim) and kikinia .to kick (a ball), ... I couldn't find anything just showing widespread Austronesian cognate sets, but I think this "protected context for old final consonant" analysis is not restricted to students of Vitu and other Oceanic languages. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 05:20:07 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:20:07 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, David Costa wrote: > Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they > actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. > But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. In other words, it's a u stacked on an o: a sort of ligaturization of two letters that work together, like the ae or oe ligatures. Sometimes you get a "funny character" out of this process, like aesc "ae" or 8, and sometimes a diacritic, like umlaut (stacked e) or cedilla (subposed s or c, I think) or tilde (stacked n). I've always wondered what hacek and ogonek were. Hacek might be a z, so that s^ = sz, etc. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 08:34:58 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:34:58 -0700 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' Message-ID: The CSD, following Matthews 1958, reconstructs a form for PS grizzly bear. Matthews suggests *matho', but the CSD, following the trend initiated in Hollow's 1970 Mandan dictionary, of seeing nasal stops as nasalized resonants, offers *waNtho'. The forms collated under this reconstruction, with some slight alterations in notation, are Ma maNto? (underlying waNto?) (Carter) Te maNtho' OP maNc^hu' (with diminutive c^h for th) Ks miNc^ho' Os miNcho' (with c = ts, irregular before o) Qu maNtho' IO maNtho' Wi maNc^o' (Pre Wi maNtho') Of *uN.'thi Tu (ha)nuB'thih (Mithun) (cf. *muNt[h]i WM) This is one of the rather rare (post)aspirate t sets, but it is irregular in having the *th as th, not h in Dakotan. The Of and Tu forms are also listed in 'black bear' *huNt-, withthe suggestion that there may be some confusion of the two stems there. The vowel iN in Ks and Os in Dhegiha is also irregular for *aN, but the same thing occurs in the 'bow' set, which is a loan from Algonquian. La (i)ta(zipa) (taking earlier *maNta(zipa) as a first person) OP maN'de Ks miN'j^e Os miNce Qu maN'tte IO maN'hdu (Pre IO *maNhtu < *maNtku with regular metathesis) Wi maNaNc^gu (Pre Wi *maN'tku) Cf. Proto-Algonquian me?tekw-a 'wood' + ANIMATE I recently occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for unknown cluster initial leading to preaspirates some palces and fricatives others. I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Under this are collated (per Aubin) Fox mahkwa Cree maskwa Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) Shawnee mkwa etc., including Arapohoe and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not indicated. Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is 'male', and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial for making medials into forms capable of standing alone./ I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. What I've noticed is a dgree of parallism with the 'bow' term. Thjis is in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. - In both cases we have Siouan forms lacking an element that might match the animate marker -a. - In both cases we have PA mV lining up with maN most places in Siouam, but miN in Ks and Os. After that it's a bit more variable. - PA ...?tkw appears as Siouan ...t-e or ...tku (in Winnebago-Chiwere), in which -e is a Siouan noun forming suffix, but - PA ...0kw lines up with ...tho in Siouan. It's not clear if there's any connection, but if there is, - Why should ?tk should match t ~ tk, but 0k match th. - Why should we keep -u in one case but -o in the other. One possible reason why 0k became th would be the following vowel -o. While this was reduced to w we would have a cluster kw which seems to be unstable in Siouan. In 'cat' and 'squash' it gets this treatment. Da *km (kw before a nasal vowel) IO dw (earlier tw) Wi c^(V)w (earlier tw) Dh *kdh (essentially kr) Of course it's not clear why *tw would be preferred across the board in bear. Later reduction to -to is not too different from -ku with 'bow'. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:20:09 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:20:09 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: > So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and > -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? I don't think it could be cognate with the Mississippi Valley Siouan declarative marker, *-re (Dak. -ye, as in yelo, etc.). As I recall from Sara's comparative paper on that, it's a MVS feature. Outside of MVS, both Biloxi and Mandan have gendered grammer, but it's different. Crow and Hidatsa seem to have lost it entirely. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Mar 7 15:49:05 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:49:05 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). >> >> Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. > > In ou(n)spik? Yes. > I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that > has a k there. That's an idea. It seems to be a direct object marker in Biloxi. Do we have any "article" information on Tutelo or Ofo? > Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? Musogran ??? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:53:42 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:53:42 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: > . . . if loss of the initial labial /m/ is a single event in Ofo-Biloxi, and if Mosopelea is the ancestral name of the Ofo, then the 17th century Mosopelea would have to be ancestral to the Biloxi as well. No, the loss of initial m/w would have to precede the split of BI and OF. > I don't see why we are assuming that Ofo-ic speakers were an ethnic singularity at this time. Swanton's account makes it clear that the Uspe and the Ofo-gula were two separate groups in the period from 1699 to 1722. The Ofo-gula can certainly be identified with the Ofo as represented linguistically by Rosa Pierrette. The Tunica knew her group as the Ushpi, which can equally certainly be identified with the Uspe. Either name could be derived from Mosopelea, but not both at once. No, one is a Tunica language adaptation of the name, the other is the Siouan progression via sound change. > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. I think it's a mistake to assume that a spelling like 'ouispe' contains the original labial. That was long-gone and probably never actually attested from speakers. That's just initial [u] and the "i" probably comes from the "oussipe" term. I also doubt that it's possible to infer length from what may have been a circumflex in somebody's 17th cent. North American French handwriting. French spelling then, like English spelling, was very idiosyncratic and not all these fellows were terribly literate (compare Lewis and Clark for example). > . . . Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. This map is not based on first hand information though. It has a variety of ethnoynms that were collected indirectly through contact tribes. The expedition didn't arrive at the Mississippi via the Mosopeleas. There are other maps and accounts in which it's made clear that knowledge of the Mosopeleas came via other tribes who reported their earlier presence well up the Ohio. The notation on the maps reads (in French) "eight towns destroyed". These were people who were remembered, and that may account for the initial [m]. We have no way to know when the M disappeared in native speech, and it's presence may only be attested in the name as preserved by OTHER, non-Siouan, tribes. It cannot, as far as I know, be dated to the 17th century definitively. We just don't know. > Could you remind me again: in OVS, what is the relationship tree of Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi? Any sense on the time depth? Ofo and Biloxi are one subgroup. Virginia Siouan the other. Giulia and I have a paper on this in the Siebert Festschrift. Time depth is very difficult, but I talk about it in the Maize paper I mentioned. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:54:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:54:19 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: We do. Tutelo had a -k article that is attested in the transcriptions made by Edward Sapir circa 1910. So that's a possibility. Biloxi has a -k nominal suffix that Dave Kaufman and I argue about but can't yet identify. It may or may not be a variant of BI. /kaN/. I can't recall any such article from Ofo, but there's so little to go on. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 9:49 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos >> > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). >> >> Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. > > In ou(n)spik? Yes. > I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that > has a k there. That's an idea. It seems to be a direct object marker in Biloxi. Do we have any "article" information on Tutelo or Ofo? > Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? Musogran ??? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 17:09:58 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:09:58 -0700 Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) Message-ID: The CSD includes a set - actually glossed 'vermin 4' that is based on forms like Te gnas^ka' (Pre Da *knaNs^ka) IO waagraN'ske Wi wakaNnaN's^ge Qu waxno's^ka ~ wanaN'ska These are all 'frog', and require only PMV *wa-kraNs^-ka, but further afield we find Bi * kanac^ki 'wood tick' I wanted to add a resemblant Algonquian 'frog' word I've run into. It was provided by a Meskwaki aquaintance at work: He spelled it ken wa ska and I thought it sounded like [kenwas^k]. (I was pursuing my project of looking for possible Algonquian glosses of "Tonto." to match those for "Kemosabe.") John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 16:57:41 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:57:41 -0800 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + > ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown > cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when not in clusters). > Under this are collated (per Aubin) > > Fox mahkwa > Cree maskwa > Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) > Shawnee mkwa > > etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. More for the collection: Miami mahkwa Ojibwe makwa Munsee Delaware maxkw Massachusett mashq Arapaho wóx > My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it > means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not > indicated. No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' reconstructs pretty cleanly. > Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is > 'male', Right. > and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part of the final, it's just a gender marker. > I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial > for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of */ma0kwa/. > I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is > in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist > that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are > some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan forms beyond that. Dave From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 17:22:28 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:22:28 -0800 Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:$ke:ha/ 'frog'. The final syllable would be voiceless, and hence inaudible to many listeners. >>From what I can tell, this word seems to be found ONLY in Sauk and Meskwaki. Dave > From: Koontz John E > Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:09:58 -0700 (MST) > To: Siouan List > Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) > > The CSD includes a set - actually glossed 'vermin 4' that is based on > forms like > > Te gnas^ka' (Pre Da *knaNs^ka) > IO waagraN'ske > Wi wakaNnaN's^ge > Qu waxno's^ka ~ wanaN'ska > > These are all 'frog', and require only PMV *wa-kraNs^-ka, but further > afield we find > > Bi * kanac^ki 'wood tick' > > I wanted to add a resemblant Algonquian 'frog' word I've run into. It was > provided by a Meskwaki aquaintance at work: > > He spelled it ken wa ska and I thought it sounded like [kenwas^k]. > > (I was pursuing my project of looking for possible Algonquian glosses of > "Tonto." to match those for "Kemosabe.") > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 17:44:18 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:44:18 -0600 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' Message-ID: And of course the similar phoneme in Muskogean varies in pronunciation between voiceless L and theta in at least Choctaw and Creek (probably the rest too). Some, as you would expect, are convinced that the latter pronunciation is English influence, but I don't think there's any real proof of that. Early writers often wrote "thl". Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 10:57 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' > I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + > ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown > cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when not in clusters). > Under this are collated (per Aubin) > > Fox mahkwa > Cree maskwa > Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) > Shawnee mkwa > > etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. More for the collection: Miami mahkwa Ojibwe makwa Munsee Delaware maxkw Massachusett mashq Arapaho wóx > My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it > means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not > indicated. No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' reconstructs pretty cleanly. > Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is > 'male', Right. > and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part of the final, it's just a gender marker. > I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial > for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of */ma0kwa/. > I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is > in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist > that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are > some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan forms beyond that. Dave From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 18:05:21 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:05:21 -0800 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In that connection, it's worth pointing out that the relevant phoneme does *not* appear as a voiceless lateral in any Algonquian language. That's one argument for reconstructing it as theta. Dave > > And of course the similar phoneme in Muskogean varies in pronunciation between > voiceless L and theta in at least Choctaw and Creek (probably the rest too). > Some, as you would expect, are convinced that the latter pronunciation is > English influence, but I don't think there's any real proof of that. Early > writers often wrote "thl". > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa > Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 10:57 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' > > >> I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + >> ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown >> cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. > > Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been > securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most > typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > >> I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. > > Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, > and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when > not in clusters). > >> Under this are collated (per Aubin) >> >> Fox mahkwa >> Cree maskwa >> Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) >> Shawnee mkwa >> >> etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. > > More for the collection: > > Miami mahkwa > Ojibwe makwa > Munsee Delaware maxkw > Massachusett mashq > Arapaho wóx > >> My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it >> means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are >> not >> indicated. > > No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' > reconstructs pretty cleanly. > >> Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is >> 'male', > > Right. > >> and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. > > No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part > of the final, it's just a gender marker. > >> I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial >> for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. > > Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form > final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, > this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no > Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of > */ma0kwa/. > >> I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. > > Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > >> What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is >> in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist >> that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are >> some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. > > It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the > Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian > loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, > if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan > forms beyond that. > > Dave > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 18:05:43 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:05:43 -0600 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' Message-ID: OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 18:12:14 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:12:14 -0800 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. Dave > > OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. > > > > Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. > > > > Bob > > > From poulsente at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 18:40:06 2007 From: poulsente at hotmail.com (tom poulsen) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:40:06 -0700 Subject: time frame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 19:23:09 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:23:09 -0600 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' Message-ID: That's quite interesting. You wrote it with a $ and I entered that as an s-hacek in the database. Then I selected and copied the entry (with s-hacek) and pasted it in my confirming email. And it comes out a plain S on the Siouan List. That means that the font "knows" that the nearest thing to s-hacek is plain S, and it substitutes it. Microsoft is going to "correct" your behavior whether you like it or not, I guess. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:12 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: CSD 'vermin 4' Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. Dave > > OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. > > > > Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. > > > > Bob > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 19:33:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:33:19 -0600 Subject: time frame Message-ID: Nobody really has the slightest idea. Archaeologists have tended to speculate over the years that the Siouan tribes were pushed out of the Ohio Valley by Iroquoian raids. This is guesswork. It might be a possible reason for Dhegiha movements, but applied to the whole of Siouan, it's anachronistic, I think. The *only* evidence that I know of is the fact that the Catawban and Yuchi families are distantly related and both are in the SE. There is certainly no realistic time frame, and, as far as I know, no way to acquire one at present. DNA studies over time might elucidate some of these problems, but this technology is in its infancy, and even its most vocal proponents (like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) admit that it will be a long time before "the dust settles". I'm not even that optimistic. My 2 cents worth. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of tom poulsen Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: time frame can anyone tell me the time frame of the western sioux migrations into the great plains areas. Did the Lakota people etc, live in the upper south? ________________________________ Buy what you want when you want it on Sympatico / MSN Shopping From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Mar 7 19:29:23 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:29:23 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can >> be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for >> clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's >> older brother HE shot a deer". > > Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. I might have to read through a few Dorsey stories to find one, so let me temporarily retract the above statement until I do. But yes, I think we could probably call it a focus marker. I'm assuming this is the same as the generic deictic e which can stand alone. >> For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old >> declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages >> I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be >> responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. > > I bewlive -e occurs after verbs, too, in Biloxi, when it is the clause is > focussed. If we accept that Biloxi -di arises from -e, with preceding epenthetic r, -(r)e, with raising of e to i and shifting of r to d, then yes, it's very common after verbs in some stories. > I still see the plural markers as something else, even when they mark proximate singulars. I acknowledge that. Let me take a stab at summarizing our two models for the OP bi and i particles. Model 1. In proto-MVS, there was a pluralizing particle *pi, or perhaps *api. In OP, this particle diverged into two functionally different particles, bi and i, in which the latter lost the initial /p/. The i particle was retained for pluralizing, while the bi particle was used for reporting hearsay. This development affected only OP. Model 2. In proto-MVS, there were three particles, *a, *e, and *pi. *e was a declarative or focus marker that came at the end. *a may have been the original augment, or some particle conveying a third party active sense. *pi may have been a "softening" particle used for hearsay, generalizing, or politeness. *a came directly after the verb, and could be followed either by *e or *pi. *pi was used only after *a, but *e could come alone directly after the verb. The possibilities were: [Verb]-e; [Verb]-a-e; [Verb]-a-pi. The [Verb]-a-e combination needed an epenthetic separation, which developed as [Verb]-a(y)e, [Verb]-aiye, [Verb]-aire. In Winnebago, the latter form was retained for 3rd person plural; in OP, the final -e syllable, together with its epenthetic consonant, was generally dropped, leaving [Verb]-ai. At the same time, the /a/ was generally lost whenever the verb stem ended in a vowel. Its third party active, augmentive, semantic sense was shifted onto the sound that followed it, which could be either *=pi or *=i(re). These two secondary augments developed differently in different branches of MVS, with *=pi completely taking over in Dakotan; *=pi being used as the augment in most positions of Winnebago with *=ire retained for 3rd person plural; and *=i(re) used as the action or augment marker in OP, with *=pi being retained for marking hearsay and hypothesis. I'd consider either of these models possible, and on the table. Model 2 has been developing gradually in my mind for some years, and it owes a lot to ideas that you have suggested on this list, including *a as an action/agentive marker, *e as a focus marker, and the minimal-augment paradigm. It does not have the advantage of having been vetted by the very broad and rather deep knowledge of all the Siouan languages that you and Bob have at hand. >> So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and >> -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? > Or, if it followed a verb where a declarative wasn't appropriate, then it > could be a nominalizer or clause final focus marker. > Apart from our perennial divergence on *=pi we seem to be on the same > page! Yay! Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 19:43:18 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:43:18 -0800 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Microsoft knows what's good for us even if we don't. > > That's quite interesting. You wrote it with a $ and I entered that as an > s-hacek in the database. Then I selected and copied the entry (with s-hacek) > and pasted it in my confirming email. And it comes out a plain S on the > Siouan List. That means that the font "knows" that the nearest thing to > s-hacek is plain S, and it substitutes it. Microsoft is going to "correct" > your behavior whether you like it or not, I guess. > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa > Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:12 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: CSD 'vermin 4' > > > > Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. > > Dave > > >> >> OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. >> >> >> >> Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 8 00:52:54 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:52:54 -0700 Subject: time frame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, tom poulsen wrote: > can anyone tell me the time frame of the western sioux migrations into > the great plains areas. Did the Lakota people etc, live in the upper > south? If you want a collection of semi-standard views by archaeologists, see Plains Indians, A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups (Paperback) by Karl H. Schlesier (Editor) Paperback: 512 pages Publisher: Univ of Oklahoma Pr; Reprint edition (March 1995) Language: English ISBN-10: 0806126418 ISBN-13: 978-0806126418 Ironically, KS's own contributions, dealing with Tanoan, seem to me to be the shakiest. Archaeologists currently tend to associate the early Dakota with the in-place development of something they call Psinomani, i.e., psiN-o'maNniN 'rice in-walking' = 'rice collecting'. I'm not sure of the archaeological pronunciation, but I think it must be close to cinnamony. (Now I'm hungry.) (Another Dakota-named archaeological expression, from northwestern Iowa, I think, is Chanyata, i.e., c^haNyata 'in/to the woods', if I remember the right gloss.) Psinomani is somewhat varied in its subsistance and residential patterns, rather like the Dakotan groups themselves, but tends to be associated with certain pottery types that are vaguely Oneota-like, but not as ornately trailed or incised. I think it dates back to c. CE 1000 in the general area of northern Minnesota and the eastern Dakotas, but I'd rather not be held to the precise date. This association and Psinomani itself may not be the last word on the subject from archaeologists. Historically, they've waffled quite a bit for Dakotan, especially Assiniboine-Stoney. A lot of the archeological work on Psinomani is fairly recent. Check the list archives. I think we've discussed this before. Archaeologists do usually now assume that the Dakota developed in place in Minnesota, emerging from earlier people there, and have for some time, and I tend to agree with them for various reasons, but to be fair, archaeologists have been very reluctant to postulate "migration" or even "outside influence" theories for the last 30 years or so. Before that everything was explained with at least "outside influences" and actual "migration theories" get increasingly popular as you go back. They were a staple of popular and scholarly theory in the 1800s and before. I think we are now tending to swing back toward migrations, perhaps in a more sophisticated way. Note that when I say that archaeologists think of the Dakota as emerging in place I am referring to the Dakota as a cultural entity. As a rule American archaeologists do not concern themselves much with language when they are building their models. To be fair, lexemes seem to be very poorly preserved in most precontact sites north of the Rio Grande del Sur. (I find that very frustrating.) Anyway, archaeologists a few years ago were not in the least concerned about the contradictions inherent in proposing that all the various Siouan groups evolved in place. Their model humans had physical remains, made pottery, lithic artifacts and houses, erected mounds, dug pits and lit fires. They frequently practiced subsistence and occasionally conducted economic activities or integrated themselves politically across extended areas, but they never actually spoke, and they only seldom did anything involving genes. I think that stage has passed, but most of what you find in print will neglect linguistics. Almost the only exception to this linguistic neglect was an implicit reliance on any and all schemes for associating languages into very high level phylum groupings. Of course, I have to admit that detailed lower-level linguistic information of any other kind was and actually still is a bit hard to come by ... so essentially they were using all the easily available linguistic data and, like the early long rangers, not worrying too much about linguistic processes just yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 8 01:30:45 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:30:45 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: Posted for RLR. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:16:23 -0600 From: "Rankin, Robert L" To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Mar 8 14:43:00 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:43:00 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Mar 8 15:46:08 2007 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:46:08 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We use both negation and question patterns for that kind of "softening" of commands and suggestions. "Don't you want to come with us?" is less abrupt and demanding than "Do you want to come with us?" There is no logical negative in the first example -- I'm not asking "Is it the case that you do not want to come with us?". This of course leads to what speakers of languages like Lakota and Japanese perceive as the "backwards" use of "yes" and "no" as answers. If you answer to the negative, as Lakota does, you would use "yes" to say "I don't want to" and "no" to say "you're wrong -- I do want to". Instead, English ignores the negative and uses "yes" for "I do want to" for both questions. I think this would extend to situations where the listener is not involved, but I don't have time to cogitate on possible examples right now. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" > without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of > grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It > can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are > many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". > > It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person > references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do > we ever use this for third person or other situations where the > listener is not involved? > > Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 8 17:22:49 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:22:49 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: This is Paul Hopper's book "Grammaticalization", which ought to be in the UNL library. He has a bunch of examples. I added a lot more from my native "Southern English" for my classes. I'll try to find the handout. I don't have any trouble myself using "lets" with a 3rd person. For example, I can say: "Lets him drive the Ford and I'll take the Chevy." "Lets you take the Ford. . . ." is even better. I misspoke in my earlier post. Hopper's term for this usage of "lets" is 'adhortative' rather than just 'hortative'. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 8 17:31:23 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:31:23 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: Sorry, I forgot Hopper's "Grammaticalization" co-author, Elizabeth Closs Traugott. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sun Mar 11 15:59:52 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:59:52 -0500 Subject: Siouan Conference in May. Passport info. Message-ID: The current processing time for US passport applications is about 10 weeks. For anyone who hasn't applied yet, that's starting to cut things a little bit close. Application form can be found on-line at www.travel.state.gov , or at most local post offices. Filing is done at the Post Office and you need your birth certificate. For an additional fee you can get "expedited service" in about 3 weeks instead of 10. That's what I'll end up doing since I had to order a copy of my birth certificate just this last week. Bob From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 12:38:18 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:38:18 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070214125152.02237b80@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Mon Mar 12 17:29:18 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:29:18 -0600 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <394730.73349.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >Dear Mary >Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >Yours >Bruce > >Marino wrote: >Hello Ardis, > >The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 >May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour >the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the >CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter >as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going >to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents >of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA >Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions >of the latter would be most appealing to our people. > >It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included >on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your >local passport office. > >Best, >Mary > >PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it >works out. > >At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later >>it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >> >> >> >>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette <kdshea at ku.edu> >>wrote: >>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last >>year's. I have a current passport. >>Kathy Shea >>________________________________ >>From: >>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>on behalf of Marino >>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Hello all, >>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite >>answer now. >>Mary >>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >> >> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know >> if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to >> post something soon on the Siouan list. >> Randy >> > > >The >all-new >Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >Internet provider. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 20:31:41 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:31:41 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070312112719.02236840@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Mary I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. --------------------------------- Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Mon Mar 12 21:15:58 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:15:58 -0600 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <639737.65041.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. Best, Mary At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >Thanks Mary >I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? >Yours >Bruce > >Marino wrote: >Hello Bruce > >The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association >meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that >the CLA program is now being finalized. > >Best, >Mary > > >At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Mary >>Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >>Yours >>Bruce >> >>Marino wrote: >>Hello Ardis, >>The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >>Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 >>May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour >>the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into >>the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the >>latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we >>going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the >>contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know >>the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which >>sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. >>It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >>children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included >>on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your >>local passport office. >>Best, >>Mary >>PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if >>it works out. >>At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later >>>it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >>> >>> >>>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette <kdshea at ku.edu> >>>wrote: >>>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last >>>year's. I have a current passport. >>>Kathy Shea >>>________________________________ >>>From: >>>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>on behalf of Marino >>>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Hello all, >>>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite >>>answer now. >>>Mary >>>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >>> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know >>> if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to >>> post something soon on the Siouan list. >>> Randy >> >> >>The >>all-new >>Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >>Internet provider. > > > >Now you can >scan >emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new >Yahoo! >Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 21:37:22 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:37:22 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070312151456.02230118@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Super 8 is my preferred motel. Shame about the tree line. I was looking forward to a primordial forest. How much further would I have to go? Bruce Marino wrote: What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. Best, Mary At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Thanks Mary I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Mar 13 01:07:17 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:07:17 -0400 Subject: 2007 SCLC Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Tue Mar 13 16:33:30 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:33:30 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Re: 2007 SCLC Message-ID: This should have gone to Bruce, I think. Mary >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:56:58 -0600 >To: Carolyn Quintero >From: Marino >Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC > >Right on, Carolyn. There actually isn't a treeline; what happens is that >as you trudge northwards on snowshoes with the wind howling in your ears, >the trees get smaller and smaller, but we're not actually quite that far >north. All the vegetation is pretty well normal size here, and by 24 May >we should have full spring. Hard to predict, though; the weather god >might arrange some special effects for you if you ask him nicely. I have >what looks to be primordial forest in my back garden, but it isn't, >really. Has Longfellow gotten on to the Siouan list? You'd need to be >going to Nova Scotia, anyway. > >I'll see what I can do about primordial stuff and also about Super 8. I'm >not easily offended, we get lame Usonian jokes all the time. > >Best, >Mary > > >At 07:07 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: > >>Surely primordial forest is almost the opposite of tree line. You seem >>to have slightly offended Mary. I imagine she'll get lots of the "far >>north" teasings. >> >> >> >>I think the forest that still stands in primeval anyway, not primordial, >>n'est-ce pas? >> >> >> >>You naughty old boy, you. >> >>OG >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: shokooh Ingham >>Sent: Mar 12, 2007 5:37 PM >>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>Super 8 is my preferred motel. Shame about the tree line. I was looking >>forward to a primordial forest. How much further would I have to go? >>Bruce >>Marino wrote: >>What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We >>are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. >>Best, >>Mary >>At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>>Thanks Mary >>>I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? >>>Yours >>>Bruce >>>Marino wrote: >>>Hello Bruce >>>The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association >>>meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard >>>that the CLA program is now being finalized. >>>Best, >>>Mary >>>At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>>>Dear Mary >>>>Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >>>>Yours >>>>Bruce >>>>Marino wrote: >>>>Hello Ardis, >>>>The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >>>>Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - >>>>29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I >>>>favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could >>>>continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like >>>>to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided >>>>matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or >>>>discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last >>>>year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I >>>>gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most >>>>appealing to our people. >>>>It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >>>>children of any age to either have their own passports or to be >>>>included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details >>>>with your local passport office. >>>>Best, >>>>Mary >>>>PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if >>>>it works out. >>>>At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>>>>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The >>>>>later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>>>>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>>>>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>>>>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >>>>> >>>>>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette >>>>><kdshea at ku.edu> wrote: >>>>>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed >>>>>last year's. I have a current passport. >>>>>Kathy Shea >>>>>________________________________ >>>>>From: >>>>>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>>> on behalf of Marino >>>>>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>>>>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>>>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hello all, >>>>>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>>>>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>>>>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a >>>>>definite answer now. >>>>>Mary >>>>>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >>>>> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't >>>>> know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary >>>>> Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. >>>>> Randy >>> >>> >>>The >>>all-new >>>Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >>>Internet provider. >> >> >>Now you can >>scan >>emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new >>Yahoo! >>Mail. >> >> >> >>What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of >>your email personality. Take the quiz at the >>Yahoo! >>Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 17 03:55:01 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:55:01 -0500 Subject: Generic deictic in OP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A couple of weeks ago, John wrote: >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: >> For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can >> be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for >> clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's >> older brother HE shot a deer". > > Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. Sorry to be slow about getting back to you on this. I've just looked through a couple of the Dorsey historical accounts, from 399 to 404, and found two. 400:11-13 KkI UmaN'haN ama' gai' tHE: UmaN'haN-he'be riNkHe', ija'je radai' tHE, e' wara'?ii tHEdi'hi kkI, mu'aNri'ctaN ttai'tHe, ai'. That one isn't ideal, as there seems to be an aside in the middle of the quote, just before the e'. 402:2-3 Nu'daNhaNga', tti' d^u'ba ppe'raNba Edi' tHE, e' ura' maNgriN'i-ga, a'-biama' Ca'rewa'rE akHa'. I think the grammar of this one is clear, although it's for a whole quotable clause instead of a single noun phrase. Are these good enough, or should I look for more? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jack_Rushing at sil.org Sat Mar 17 09:00:49 2007 From: Jack_Rushing at sil.org (Jack_Rushing at sil.org) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00:49 -0500 Subject: Jack Rushing is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 03/16/2007 and will not return until 03/20/2007. I will respond to your message when I return. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Mar 1 01:04:00 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:04:00 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 1 01:24:12 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:24:12 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 1 20:10:32 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:10:32 -0700 Subject: Language Documentation & Conservation Journal Message-ID: I have been asked to post the following to the list. The request seemed reasoanble, since some of you might not get it through other channels and it is of general interest. JEK ==================================== Announcement and Call for Papers Announcement The National Foreign Language Resource Center is pleased to announce its sponsorship of the new peer-reviewed, open-access journal, Language Documentation & Conservation (LD&C), to be published exclusively in electronic format by the University of Hawai'i Press. To learn more about this new journal, please visit http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/. Call for Papers The editors of LD&C seek manuscripts on all topics pertaining to language documentation and conservation, including, but not limited to, the goals of language documentation, data management, fieldwork methods, ethical issues, orthography design, reference grammar design, lexicography, methods of assessing ethnolinguistic vitality, archiving matters, language planning, areal survey reports, short field reports on endangered or underdocumented languages, reports on language maintenance, preservation, and revitalization efforts, plus software, hardware, and book reviews. Submissions to this new journal are now welcome and will be accepted for review on an ongoing basis. For more information on how to submit a paper to Language Documentation & Conservation, go to http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/submissions.html. Invitation to Subscribe To subscribe to LD&C, please click on http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/subscribe.html. It's free! Akiemi Glenn Managing Editor Language Documentation & Conservation http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 01:45:11 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:45:11 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names Message-ID: > "A minor footnote that occurs to me is that the -a, especially in the -(e)a version is probably the Algonquian animate proximate singular. Costa could confirm that and sources. (And I think we discussed the latter on the List.)" If that's the case, then I don't think Ojibwe/Ottawa could be a possible source of the loan. The Anishinaabe dialects have ost the final animate -a of Proto-Algonquian in most words. I'm not positive about whether Miami-Illinois or Fox retain them, but I have this vague recollection that at least Miami-Illinois did. The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. In Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix (short) -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard and Costa correctly. Thanks for the kind words about the entries in Bright's book. I was the author of the Dhegiha place names part. Discussion of the Akansea question is sort of split between the Arkansas and Kansas entries, I'm afraid. My own feeling is that all 5 Dhegiha-speaking tribes were in the Ohio Valley and probably never in the upper Midwest until the Omahas and Poncas moved North. This would have been between about the 7th and 12th centuries A.D. at least. I tried to show this in my article in Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, Bruce F. Benz. Published by Elsevier, San Diego, N.Y. 2006. The paper shows a definite dissociation of Dhegiha from Chiwere and Dakota at a fairly early date. Bob Rankin From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Mar 2 03:41:20 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:41:20 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > My own feeling is that all 5 Dhegiha-speaking tribes were in the Ohio Valley and probably never in the upper Midwest until the Omahas and Poncas moved North. This would have been between about the 7th and 12th centuries A.D. at least. I tried to show this in my article in Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, Bruce F. Benz. Published by Elsevier, San Diego, N.Y. 2006. The paper shows a definite dissociation of Dhegiha from Chiwere and Dakota at a fairly early date. This would put the Dhegihans closest to the Southeastern languages, wouldn't it? Any sense of the languages of these two groups having similarities due to proximity? I seem to find Biloxi easier than other Siouan languages outside of Dhegiha, but I'm not sure whether it's really similar to OP, or if it's just because both Biloxi and OP have substantial interlinear texts recorded by Dorsey. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Fri Mar 2 07:56:13 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 23:56:13 -0800 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I assume we're still talking about 'Kansa' here? If so, the name in question has initial /a/ in Meskwaki and Sauk as well ('0' = theta): Meskwaki /akaasa/ Sauk /akaa0a/ However, compare: Shawnee /kaa0a/ 'Kansa, Kaw', /kaa0eemi/ 'pecan' & /kaa0eewi0iipi/ 'Ohio River' Miami-Illinois /kaansa/~/kaanse/ 'Kansa, Kaw' Illinois , pl. Miami 'pecan' You're right tho, that Sauk-Fox-Kickapoo normally has /o/ for ethnonyms where Miami-Illinois has /a/. In fact, Miami-Illinois does not have word-initial short /o/: 'Ojibwe, Chippewa': Miami /acipwia/ Sauk /ocipweewa/ Kickapoo /ocipwea/ Shawnee /hocipwe/ Ojibwe /ojibwe/ The final animate /-a/ of Proto-Algonquian is preserved in Miami-Illinois and Sauk-Fox-Kickapoo, and sporadically so in Shawnee. David > "A minor footnote that occurs to me is that the -a, especially in the -(e)a > version is probably the Algonquian animate proximate singular. Costa > could confirm that and sources. (And I think we discussed the latter on > the List.)" If that's the case, then I don't think Ojibwe/Ottawa could be a > possible source of the loan. The Anishinaabe dialects have lost the final > animate -a of Proto-Algonquian in most words. I'm not positive about whether > Miami-Illinois or Fox retain them, but I have this vague recollection that at > least Miami-Illinois did. > > The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. In > Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix (short) > -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard and Costa > correctly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 16:31:05 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:31:05 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 16:41:50 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:41:50 -0800 Subject: Biloxi update Message-ID: Hi all, Just wanted to update everyone on what I'm doing with Biloxi these days. I'm working with Bob Rankin this semester in an Independent Study on "Focus and Topicalization in Biloxi," which also will deal somewhat with the apparent switch reference system, not as the main focus, but rather in conjunction with one of the topicalization (?) markers that is also used in the SR system. I am analyzing several of the texts in this regard. I am switching to KU's Anthropology Dept. doctoral program this Fall, and it looks like I'll be able to use my revised Biloxi dictionary as an MA thesis over there. So I continue to work on that as well. Also, if anyone missed it who's interested, my paper titled "A Reanalysis of the Dorsey-Swanton U-circumflex and U-breve in Biloxi" has been published and posted to the Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics (KWPL) accessible through the university web site. It's the first paper in the newest edition. Dave --------------------------------- Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Mar 2 18:16:25 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:16:25 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <378100.10015.qm@web53807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. In that case, what does "first mention" have to do with it? I was looking a little at the first story, "Rabbit and Towe (Frenchman)", and it looks like the -di not only is not always used with first mention as you say, but that it can be used repeatedly after first mention as well. Am I misunderstanding something here? Any thoughts on -di as a marker both on nouns and verbs? Or how it compares with the -yaN (or possibly -aN) noun marker to which it is sometimes postfixed? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 18:19:40 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:19:40 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: I'm not fond of the "free variation" part. If it's a productive morpheme, it is by definition not in free variation. If it's used productively there has to be a semantic association worth searching for. I guess I'd try listing out all the exceptional cases as a first step. I'll need to check the comparative database again to see whether *-re or *-ri is a better bet. It depends on what the regular correspondences are for final e/i in the various languages. We know Biloxi has vowel raising, so it can't be probative. The question is whether Mandan has lowering or Hidatsa has raising. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 10:31 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Biloxi nominal markers Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. Dave "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't apparently restricted to first mention. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 2/28/2007 7:04 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Biloxi nominal markers > Dave Kaufman has discovered that in Biloxi -re/-ri is used to mark nominals at first mention in a discourse. Is this the same as the -di I'm seeing on a lot of nouns and verbs in the Biloxi texts of the 1909/1912 Dorsey/Swanton Biloxi/Ofo collection? Rory ________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. From rankin at ku.edu Fri Mar 2 18:31:41 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:31:41 -0600 Subject: Etymologies of some state names Message-ID: > This would put the Dhegihans closest to the Southeastern languages, wouldn't it? Any sense of the languages of these two groups having similarities due to proximity? This is what the article is about. > I seem to find Biloxi easier than other Siouan languages outside of Dhegiha, but I'm not sure whether it's really similar to OP, or if it's just because both Biloxi and OP have substantial interlinear texts recorded by Dorsey. The latter, I suspect. To me virtually any MVS language is more like Dhegiha than any of the OVS languages. Bob From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 22:27:04 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:27:04 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rory, As you can tell, there's still a lot to be done here and I'm in the process, slowly as I have time, of trying to sort through the data. You're right, -di not only does not always occur with first mention but it also sometimes occurs AFTER first mention. (This may relate to Mandan -(r)e, now that I think about it, which also appears to come not just in first-mention focus position but also in post-first-mention topic position. Perhaps Sara can help us out here re: Mandan?) I'm aware that -di also occurs on verbs and it may be a type of nominalizer, but I really haven't focused on its use yet as a verbal suffix. It appears that -yaN is usually used as a topic marker. Often the same noun or entity that bears -di (or 0-marking) on first mention bears -yaN when mentioned later. (But not always, AND, as you say, sometimes -di occurs again). I haven't begun to figure out the -yaNdi compound suffix and when it is used. There's also the little issue of the -k(aN) suffix, which may or may not be related to the supposed SR marker kaN and may be some type of oblique marker. As y'all can see, this ain't easy! That's why I've devoted a whole semester working with Bob to try and sort things out. Most of these suffixes don't seem to occur in other Siouan languages and so far Muskogean hasn't been too helpful either. The big question remains whether these suffix-markers are somehow Biloxi innovations or leftovers of the proto-language which dropped out in other languages but were retained in Biloxi (as appears to be the case with -di/PS -ri). I'm basing my theories of -di and -yaN so far on what I've observed through careful analysis of several texts--what happens most often when (using the law of averages). It's interesting to note however that there are whole texts where few or none of these markers or suffixes occur and others where they are quite consistent with my theories. How much of this is syntax vs. perhaps formal discourse or oratory tradition in storytelling I'm not sure. I welcome any suggestions anyone may have for reading related to focus-topicalization and discourse analysis (in oral tradition or mythology). Thanks! Dave Rory M Larson wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since first mention occurs both with and without it. In that case, what does "first mention" have to do with it? I was looking a little at the first story, "Rabbit and Towe (Frenchman)", and it looks like the -di not only is not always used with first mention as you say, but that it can be used repeatedly after first mention as well. Am I misunderstanding something here? Any thoughts on -di as a marker both on nouns and verbs? Or how it compares with the -yaN (or possibly -aN) noun marker to which it is sometimes postfixed? Rory --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:19:39 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:19:39 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Message-ID: This is not really a Siouan issue, but it is peripherally connected. We've discussed inclusive and exclusive 'we' on the list some. Inclusive = +me +you ?somebody else Exclusive = +me -you +somebody else I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in English. I christen it "recusive." Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else as in "We need to take out the trash." John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From ahartley at d.umn.edu Fri Mar 2 23:30:22 2007 From: ahartley at d.umn.edu (Alan H. Hartley) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:30:22 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:41:10 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:41:10 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > If this associationa is valid, and /moso/ => /ofo/, doesn't that seem to > confirm that the shift from Siouan /s/ to Ofo /f/ took place fairly > recently, i.e. roughly 17th to 19th century? That was what I was wondering, too. > Do we have any definite Ofo vocabulary recorded prior to Swanton? Not that I'm aware of. As far as nasal variations ouspi- ~ onspi-, while this might reflect the nasalization implicit in moso- (/woNso/), it is also true that u tends to vary with n in early printing. There are several Siouan possibilities for "pere" ~ "pele." The final -a would be an Algonquian morpheme. I think Siouan possibilities would be PMV *pre 'lake' (La ble, OP ne, etc., where Dhegiha and Chiwere-winnebago have *Re < *pre) and something like PMV *preh- 'thin, flat'. I seem to recall OP bdhekka < PMV *preh-ka. It's not quite kosher to think in terms of general Siouan sets when dealing with a particular known language, because not all Siouan langauges attest all Siouan stems. Quite the contrary, of course. But, especially when we are dealing with old forms of a language, or any forms of a poorly known language, we can probably adduce reconstructions and then carry them forward to a hypothetical later form. In essence we have a double-starred hypothesis concerning Ofo vocabulary. I'm not sure at the moment what the expected Ofo forms of such stems would be. Since the name is attested only in non-Ofo, non-Siouan contexts - only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? - I guess we can't necessarily assume the morphemes are of Ofo origin, even if they are of Siouan origin. However, we are assuming the name is subject to Ofo sound laws and keeps getting borrowed out of Ofo into other languages as a term for what we take to be them, so we have to assume it was at least current in Ofo usage. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Fri Mar 2 23:47:45 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:47:45 -0700 Subject: Etymologies of some state names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > The source has to be Illinois Algonquian because of the initial vowel. > In Ojibwe and other languages such ethnonyms are marked with the prefix > (short) -o. This only becomes a- in Illinois if I understood Goddard > and Costa correctly. ... For those who are feeling confused, here Bob has included the Siouan list in an ongoing off-list query from "Red Newt " about state names. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 01:15:43 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:15:43 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Message-ID: Or the "accusive", as in: "Let's you take out the trash." or "Let's you and him take out the trash." Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Alan H. Hartley Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 5:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Mar 3 01:19:56 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:19:56 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <378100.10015.qm@web53807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Sat Mar 3 01:30:16 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:30:16 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <20070302222704.51342.qmail@web53810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > As you can tell, there's still a lot to be done here and I'm in the > process, slowly as I have time, of trying to sort through the data. > You're right, -di not only does not always occur with first mention but > it also sometimes occurs AFTER first mention. (This may relate to > Mandan -(r)e, now that I think about it, which also appears to come not > just in first-mention focus position but also in post-first-mention > topic position. Perhaps Sara can help us out here re: Mandan?) I'm > aware that -di also occurs on verbs and it may be a type of nominalizer, > but I really haven't focused on its use yet as a verbal suffix. I'm not positive the -(d)i on nouns and the -(d)i on verbs is the same thing. It might be, or there might be several -(d)i's after verbs, one nominalizing, and one declarative. As far as explaining where -(d)i appears and doesn't appear with nouns, it seems to me that there are several possible ways to look at the problem. You've looked at discourse conditioning. You might also look at what follows, i.e., morphosyntactic conditioning. In addition, you might take a typological approach. Look at Uto-Aztecan and Caddoan, etc., and see what the contexts are there for the absolutive markers of those language families. The odds are good that -e will behave in similar ways. This is anlogous with looking in the back of the book for the answer so you can work backward from it to the process. Of course, you'd be looking at the answer in a different text book from the one in which you find the problem, but ... You might also look at Niger-Congo grammars to see what the contexts are for inclusion and omission of class prefixes or of partial reduplications of class prefixes (0 vs. ba- or ba- vs. aba-). Another somewhat analogous sitiuation is short forms of adjectives vs. long in Baltic and Slavic. From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 01:35:30 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:35:30 -0600 Subject: Bright's placenames vol. Message-ID: A little sloppy editing. Bill had a lot on his mind during this period. My name's on the back cover and also right after the title p. as a consulting editor. I think I must have become "Maude Rowe" in the contributors list. I haven't gone through the whole book for the purpose of ego stroking, but there are some "p.c." notations, e.g., under "Arkansas". Entries are alphabetical, not by tribe or state. He sent me sections on Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska to go over, but, of course, most of my effort was on Quapaw, Kaw and Osage names. I think basically we all did a pretty good job on the Siouan names. I was MUCH happier with them than I was with the Muskogean names, which include quite a bit more speculation. Bob ________________________________ From: Alan H. Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:13 PM To: Koontz John E Cc: Red Newt; Rankin, Robert L Subject: Re: Etymologies of some state names Koontz John E wrote: > I'm puzzled here. Is there a Dhegiha placenames part? Are we thinking of > two different books? I was thinking of one organzied by states. I'm > pretty sure all contributors are named, but not necessarily by entry. > I'm pretty sure I was a contributor, too, at various points, for > Mississippi Valley Siouan languages generally, but mostly Dhegiha. > However, I only commented on particular names in lists arranged by states. > I should point out that Bob was also probably a contributor for all of > Mississippi Valley Siouan, Southeastern Siouan, and actually probably also > for Southeastern languages generally, Siouan and otherwise. In Bright's _Native American Placenames of the United States_, there's no separate Dhegiha part and no arrangement by states: the dictionary is entirely alphabetical by placename. Contributors are listed in Acknowledgments in the front matter, not by entry or specialty. Koontz is listed, Rankin is not; neither is cited in References. Alan From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 3 01:44:42 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:44:42 -0800 Subject: Accusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 'Let's you children all wash your hands, and put on your coats, too.' I think I have this in Osage somewhere. Carolyn From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:16 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Or the "accusive", as in: "Let's you take out the trash." or "Let's you and him take out the trash." Bob _____ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Alan H. Hartley Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 5:30 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Koontz John E wrote: > I have discovered (or, rather, noticed) a third possibility, at least in > English. I christen it "recusive." > > Recusive = -me +you ?somebody else > > as in > > "We need to take out the trash." My wife and I use the recusive all the time. Alan -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007 2:43 PM From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 02:14:49 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:14:49 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: Then there is the potential connection of this morpheme with the lexical demonstrative *re: and *Re: 'this, here, now' contrasting with *?e: alone. It's possible that *?e: was primary and that the forms with *r/R are/were lexicalized doublet allomorphs. Carter postulated epenthesis of /r/ in -re only following long vowels in Mandan. But, of course, there is the argument that the -e that occurs otherwise is epenthetic too. I think that is a holdover from the older, Dakotacentric analyses of Siouan generally and is probably not at all germaine outside of Mississippi Valley languages (where it has lost its meaning as a specifier). Mauricio calls it a kind of article tentatively, but also mentions the epenthesis theory. I tend to think of it as perhaps having more of a discourse function rather than a purely morphosyntactic one. The impression I get from working with Dave on the Biloxi matter (just watching him do all the work, actually) is that it involves focus more than just definiteness. But heck, what do I know? Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Koontz John E Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:19 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Biloxi nominal markers On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 02:23:58 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:23:58 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? That seems to be the case, involving perhaps only one Ofo mouth. The last paragraph in Swanton's historical introduction is worth quoting: "After 1784 no mention of this tribe appears in histories or books of travel, and it was naturally supposed that it had long been extinct, when in November, 1908, the writer had the good fortune to find an Indian woman belonging to this tribe, of which she is the last representative, who remembered a surprising number of words of her language, when it is considered that the rest of her people had died when she was a girl. She appears to have learned most of these from her old grandmother, who was also responsible for the positive statement that the name of their tribe was Ofo. This woman, Rosa Pierrette, is living with the Tunica remnant near Marksville, La., and her husband belongs to the Tunica tribe. Already in May, 1907, the writer had heard from the Tunica chief of the comparatively late existence of representatives of the Ofo, but from the fact that the one word this man could remember contained an initial f, it was assumed that it belonged to the Muskhogean linguistic family. It was therefore a surprising and most interesting discovery that the Ofogoula of French writers must be added to the Biloxi as a second representative of the Siouan family in the region of the lower Mississippi. In the use of an f it is peculiar, but its affinities appear to be first with the Biloxi and the eastern Siouan tribes rather than with the nearer Quapaw and the other Siouan dialects of the West." The preceding history Swanton gives suggests that we are dealing with two separate names for what are presumably Ofos. The earliest mention of them is supposed to be from 1699 and 1700, when French explorers became aware of a complex of about six or seven villages speaking at least three different languages about four leagues up the Yazoo River in northeastern Mississippi. One village was the Tunica (Tonica/Toumika), another the Ofo-gula (Opocoula/Offogoula, with -gula being the Mobilian ending for "people"), and another the Uspi (Ouispe/Oussipe/Ounspik). Other names given included Taposa, Chaquesauma, Outapa/Ouitoupa, Thysia, Yasoux and Coroa. The languages included Jakou (Yazoo), Ounspik (Ofo ?), and Toumika (Tunica). During the 18th century, these people seem to have declined and consolidated. In 1721, a village of "Yasous mixed with Curoas and Ofogoulas" is mentioned. In 1722, four groups are listed as having settlements on the Yazoo River: the Yasons, Courois, Offogoula, and Onspee nations, with a total population of only about 250 persons. This is the last record of the Uspi that Swanton mentions. In 1727, there are supposed to be three villages on the lower Yazoo, in which three different languages are spoken. These seem to be the Yazoo, the Koroa, and the Ofo-gula. Presumably the Uspi joined with the Ofo-gula in the mid 1720s. In 1729, the Yazoo and Koroa joined the Natchez uprising against the French, and pressured the Ofo-gula to join them. The latter resisted, and withdrew to join the Tunica, who were staunchly pro-French. By 1739, they were a small tribe of fourteen or fifteen warriors who had recently settled next to Fort Rosalie, under frequent assault by the Chickasaw, whose persecution of them continued at least until 1758. In 1739 and 1764, they are named as Ossogoulas. Apparently whatever they were using for that [s/f] phoneme, it either varied by speaker or was something that could be understood either way by the French. The connection of the Uspi with the Ofo is that the Tunica name for the Ofo was Us^pi. But this seems to have been the name of a separate group that was absorbed into the Ofo, probably speaking a closely related language. If I'm understanding this right, the Uspi name is probably not derived from moso-/ofo. (This is a reanalysis based entirely on Swanton's brief historical discussion of the Ofo. There may be other facts I don't yet know about that may modify that story!) Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 02:37:05 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:37:05 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: I think that about says it. The Yazoos and Coroas were apparently Natchezan-speaking, according to explorers. Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. One of his attested names, Ounspik (or something like that) had already lost the medial /o/ (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). It seems at least that /f/ does not simply represent a speech defect of Rosa Pierrette (or Pierrite -- it seems to have more than one spelling). Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 8:23 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos > only "Ofo," of course, is actually attested in Ofo mouths, I think? That seems to be the case, involving perhaps only one Ofo mouth. The last paragraph in Swanton's historical introduction is worth quoting: "After 1784 no mention of this tribe appears in histories or books of travel, and it was naturally supposed that it had long been extinct, when in November, 1908, the writer had the good fortune to find an Indian woman belonging to this tribe, of which she is the last representative, who remembered a surprising number of words of her language, when it is considered that the rest of her people had died when she was a girl. She appears to have learned most of these from her old grandmother, who was also responsible for the positive statement that the name of their tribe was Ofo. This woman, Rosa Pierrette, is living with the Tunica remnant near Marksville, La., and her husband belongs to the Tunica tribe. Already in May, 1907, the writer had heard from the Tunica chief of the comparatively late existence of representatives of the Ofo, but from the fact that the one word this man could remember contained an initial f, it was assumed that it belonged to the Muskhogean linguistic family. It was therefore a surprising and most interesting discovery that the Ofogoula of French writers must be added to the Biloxi as a second representative of the Siouan family in the region of the lower Mississippi. In the use of an f it is peculiar, but its affinities appear to be first with the Biloxi and the eastern Siouan tribes rather than with the nearer Quapaw and the other Siouan dialects of the West." The preceding history Swanton gives suggests that we are dealing with two separate names for what are presumably Ofos. The earliest mention of them is supposed to be from 1699 and 1700, when French explorers became aware of a complex of about six or seven villages speaking at least three different languages about four leagues up the Yazoo River in northeastern Mississippi. One village was the Tunica (Tonica/Toumika), another the Ofo-gula (Opocoula/Offogoula, with -gula being the Mobilian ending for "people"), and another the Uspi (Ouispe/Oussipe/Ounspik). Other names given included Taposa, Chaquesauma, Outapa/Ouitoupa, Thysia, Yasoux and Coroa. The languages included Jakou (Yazoo), Ounspik (Ofo ?), and Toumika (Tunica). During the 18th century, these people seem to have declined and consolidated. In 1721, a village of "Yasous mixed with Curoas and Ofogoulas" is mentioned. In 1722, four groups are listed as having settlements on the Yazoo River: the Yasons, Courois, Offogoula, and Onspee nations, with a total population of only about 250 persons. This is the last record of the Uspi that Swanton mentions. In 1727, there are supposed to be three villages on the lower Yazoo, in which three different languages are spoken. These seem to be the Yazoo, the Koroa, and the Ofo-gula. Presumably the Uspi joined with the Ofo-gula in the mid 1720s. In 1729, the Yazoo and Koroa joined the Natchez uprising against the French, and pressured the Ofo-gula to join them. The latter resisted, and withdrew to join the Tunica, who were staunchly pro-French. By 1739, they were a small tribe of fourteen or fifteen warriors who had recently settled next to Fort Rosalie, under frequent assault by the Chickasaw, whose persecution of them continued at least until 1758. In 1739 and 1764, they are named as Ossogoulas. Apparently whatever they were using for that [s/f] phoneme, it either varied by speaker or was something that could be understood either way by the French. The connection of the Uspi with the Ofo is that the Tunica name for the Ofo was Us^pi. But this seems to have been the name of a separate group that was absorbed into the Ofo, probably speaking a closely related language. If I'm understanding this right, the Uspi name is probably not derived from moso-/ofo. (This is a reanalysis based entirely on Swanton's brief historical discussion of the Ofo. There may be other facts I don't yet know about that may modify that story!) Rory From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 03:20:42 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:20:42 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > One of his attested names, Ounspik (or something like that) had already lost the medial /o/ All of them but Oussipe put the s next to the p. > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 03:55:36 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:55:36 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Koontz wrote: > I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: > 0 => r / V = __ e > I'm not positive the -(d)i on nouns and the -(d)i on verbs is the same thing. It might be, or there might be several -(d)i's after verbs, one nominalizing, and one declarative. I like these ideas, John! If we suppose that Biloxi -di is from Siouan e, then we might be able to offer two forms of e, one for nouns and one for verbs. For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's older brother HE shot a deer". For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? That would probably be a little too simple for recorded Biloxi, but perhaps as a hypothetical starting point? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 06:27:10 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:27:10 -0800 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John, According to the Siouan comparative dictionary that I looked at with Bob, the PS focus marker is shown as -ri. This of course perfectly matches -di in Biloxi and -ri in Hidatsa. Was that -(r)i considered epenthetic in PS? > This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. > I've always thought this proposal about Polynesian roots ending in consonants seems a bit strange given that many of the languages, e.g., Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori, don't allow words to end in consonants at all. Looking at a Polynesian root ending in a consonant just seems, well, shocking. Dave Koontz John E wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > Also, according to info sent to me by John Boyle, Hidatsa uses -ri for > the same (focus) purpose. Apparently Hidatsa -ri, Mandan -(r)e, and > Biloxi -di all derive from PS -ri as a focus marker. It's use in Biloxi > as a focus marker is apparently in free variation with 0 marking, since > first mention occurs both with and without it. I suspect the marker is *e and that the *-r- reflexes occur only after vowel-final stems. In essence this is what the Mandan formula -(r)e means. > "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > That's right. It's Biloxi -di, or -ni after a nasal V. > > Sara Trechter has a somewhat similar function for -(r)e in Mandan, even > though earlier workers portrayed it as "epenthetic". Mandan use isn't > apparently restricted to first mention. I believe Kennard called e an article. I don't remember how he handled the intrusive r and h and sometimes ? before it. I don't think Hollow offered any gloss for it at all. In essence he treats it as a marker added to independent nouns, i.e., an absolutive marker. It appears to be missing from the initial elements of compound lexical entries, and it is not clear whether it is also sometimes missing from independent forms. It sounds like it is. In the case of Biloxi I don't recall examples off hand of just -i added to a CVC noun stem, but there is a declarative morpheme for verbs that clearly occurs in -(d)i form. In some cases of the Biloxi declarative, I recall, other intrusive elements like -h- occur. It would be interesting to know if Hidatsa also has -(r)i, or if it is simply -ri there. In Hidatsa do first mentions of the same noun occur with and without -ri? In other words, -ri occurs with some first mentioned, but not all? I recall that in Lipkind's Winnebago grammar he talks about -ra (which is invariant) and -re (ditto) as subordinators. The first is the article. My recollection of his examples is that they looked like they occurred with relative clauses (nominalizations) with object heads, while -ra occurred with simple nouns and with nominalizations with subject heads. However, I was examining a very small corpus! I said that -re was invariant, but, of course, I was dealing with the examples Lipkind noted for "-re.". I've also noticed that nouns like was^c^iNk 'rabbit' add -e- before the "distal" or "respect" element -ga, as in Was^c^iNgega 'The Rabbit'. That's the only example of this for Winnebago that I recall, but it may provide -(r)e there as well. Of course, this is all bound up with the question of noun-finals, and for those who prefer to see all noun roots as vowel final we have to note that was^c^iNk ~ was^c^iNge(ga) corresponds to OP mas^tiNge (PDh *mas^tiNke). In other words, in this case an others like it, perhaps we should explain the *e as part of the noun and the *-re as something else. In MVS it would be hard to argue against this if it weren't for the cooperative co-occurring patterns with *-a and *-(r)a across the board. However, this is why I find the clearer *-(r)e behavior outside of MVS so interesting. I would argue that in essence we have *-e and that it appears as *-re after vowels (shifting to -ri in Hidatsa and -di in Biloxi) because there is an epenthetic -r- there: 0 => r / V = __ e We find a few other intrusive elements like -h- or -?- because nouns that end in h and ? lose those elements if nothing follows. If a noun has the form *CVh, then it appears as CVhe when *e is added, but as CV when it is not. We know that some things end in *-h (Rankin's discovery) because this explains cases of final -ua (and -ue?) in Crow-Hidatsa. I think only one of these languages shows this, but I forget which at the moment! In addition, Rankin uses -h to explain the doublet suffixes -kha and -ka in Dakotan (often with a sense 'sort of') and the corresponding -kka ~ -ga in OP (and other Dhegiha languages). I was initially (no pun intended) bothered that Mandan -r, -h, -? and even -?r finals only partly matched up with the behavior of cognates in other branches. It dawned on me recently that this is because the finals have become arbitrary morphological patterns in Mandan. So, in some cases a form has been transferred from one final class to another, or has acquired a mixed pattern like -?r. In fact, I remember a paper by Dick Carter from some time back in which he pointef out evidence that the final behavior of some stems in Mandan varied with the dialect. We have only a few cases of this, but, of course, we have only as few pieces of evidence of dialect, in the form of Maximillien's mention of Nuptadi (ruNptare) forms different from the usual Mandan forms. I don't remember the examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid. This behavior of Mandan finals is like the behavior of -Cia passives in Polynesian, where -C is historically the final consonant of the preceding *CVCV(C) stem. The final *C is lost in final position, but retained before *-ia PASSIVE. However, the *C that is attested with a given stem tends to vary a bit between languages. In some languages a few stems change from one kind of *-C to another at random. In other languages one particular *-C becomes favored and replaces others right and left. --------------------------------- Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sat Mar 3 15:08:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:08:19 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: > Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. > Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 3 19:39:32 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:39:32 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>> Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. >> Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. Yes. If Swanton's idea is valid, I would expect the -pe/-pi to be Ofo, since it was added to the native Ofo ethnonym to distinguish one village of Ofo-ic speakers from a neighboring one. In that context, the Ofo themselves would have been most conscious of the distinction, and would probably have invented the term. Outsiders would have picked it up from them. For a meaning, perhaps 'good' would work for pi: Mosopelea/Uspi = the "Good" Ofo. The (very slender) Ofo dictionary doesn't have pi listed for 'good', but the Biloxi dictionary does. Continuing this idea, the Mosopelea should be the ancestors of the Uspi, but not of the Ofo-gula. Perhaps the Ofo-gula were already living on the Yazoo River when the closely-related Mosopelea/Uspi migrated down the Mississippi and moved in with them? This would explain why the two groups were originally considered as distinct tribes. Then, if this were the case, the s->f shift must have taken place before 1700, and only in the original Ofo-gula community. The Mosopelea/Uspi would not have participated in this, and hence kept their esses. The later alternation between Ofo-gula and Oso-gula, with the latter term appearing in 1739 and 1764, would be due to the fact that the Uspi had merged into the Ofo-gula in the 1720s, and that their pronunciation of the name and the language still used /s/: Oso-gula. If the French writers happened to get the name from a true Ofo-gula, the f would be used; if from an incorporated Uspi, it would be pronounced and spelled with an s. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Mar 4 16:40:34 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:40:34 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: I think, unfortunately, that it's too much to expect ethnonyms to have intrinsic meaning. 'Baxoje' doesn't, 'KkaaNze' doesn't, 'Waz^az^e' doesn't, 'PpaNkka' doesn't. Why should Mosopelea necessarily? The terms often get folk etymologies ("dusty noses", "wind people", etc.), but these were probably never real. When names (or any words) are borrowed by speakers of a totally different language, morphological analysis of the donor language is not ordinarily performed -- a convenient gestalt is simply taken, often truncating the original term if it was several syllables. For me at any rate, it's 'way too late to try to second guess the Tunicas on why they adopted the chunk they did. Since truncation usually comes off the right-hand side of the name, I assume the Ofos had already lost the initial labial (Swanton's progression of names down the Ohio and Mississippi confirms this, and the same loss in Biloxi suggests it was very early). I strongly doubt that any non-OVS language lost initial labial sonorants spontaneously, so, to me it all pretty strongly supports identification of Swanton's ethnonyms and Tunica ushpi with the Ofos. ________________________________ >>> Swanton's idea was that Tunica /us^pi/ is the remains of the "osope" of Mosopelea. >> Actually, I suppose that might work if we assume that the -pe/-pi ending was a modifier, making Moso-pe as a name meaning, perhaps, "Little Ofo", or some such thing. (Nothing promising in the Ofo dictionary though!) > It doesn't have to have a meaning in Tunica. They couldn't parse it. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 01:07:34 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:07:34 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > For me at any rate, it's 'way too late to try to second guess the Tunicas on why they adopted the chunk they did. Since truncation usually comes off the right-hand side of the name, I assume the Ofos had already lost the initial labial (Swanton's progression of names down the Ohio and Mississippi confirms this, and the same loss in Biloxi suggests it was very early). I strongly doubt that any non-OVS language lost initial labial sonorants spontaneously, so, to me it all pretty strongly supports identification of Swanton's ethnonyms and Tunica ushpi with the Ofos. I'm not following this argument, or quite where it's directed. First, if loss of the initial labial /m/ is a single event in Ofo-Biloxi, and if Mosopelea is the ancestral name of the Ofo, then the 17th century Mosopelea would have to be ancestral to the Biloxi as well. Second, I don't see why we are assuming that Ofo-ic speakers were an ethnic singularity at this time. Swanton's account makes it clear that the Uspe and the Ofo-gula were two separate groups in the period from 1699 to 1722. The Ofo-gula can certainly be identified with the Ofo as represented linguistically by Rosa Pierrette. The Tunica knew her group as the Ushpi, which can equally certainly be identified with the Uspe. Either name could be derived from Mosopelea, but not both at once. Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. This does not mean that Ofo cannot be cognate to Moso-. Given that the Tunica knew Rosa Pierrette's Ofo group as Uus^pii, the Ofo and the Uspe must have been the same kind of people to them. It seems quite plausible that multiple groups of Ofo-ic speakers existed prior to the 17th century. They may have had a common ethnonym, and that ethnonym may have been something like *moso or *woNso. In fact, this might have been the ethnonym for the entire OVS group. If Ofo-gula and Uspe represented separate OVS dialects, and the Uspe/Mosopelea had just recently moved in from Ohio, then Ofo is very likely more closely related to Biloxi than to the original Mosopelea/Uspe tongue. Could you remind me again: in OVS, what is the relationship tree of Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi? Any sense on the time depth? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 01:51:29 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:51:29 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. Make that *woNs at pee ~ *wuNs at pii > [...] we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. Make that *moNswape(l)e ~ *woNs at pee. Sorry for the error! Rory > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 5 09:17:36 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:17:36 +0000 Subject: Bright's placenames vol. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does any one know if the paper back edition has come out? I wanted to buy the book, but the hardback is a bit expensive, mind you not much more than most such specialist books. Maybe I should treat myself. Bruce "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: A little sloppy editing. Bill had a lot on his mind during this period. My name's on the back cover and also right after the title p. as a consulting editor. I think I must have become "Maude Rowe" in the contributors list. I haven't gone through the whole book for the purpose of ego stroking, but there are some "p.c." notations, e.g., under "Arkansas". Entries are alphabetical, not by tribe or state. He sent me sections on Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska to go over, but, of course, most of my effort was on Quapaw, Kaw and Osage names. I think basically we all did a pretty good job on the Siouan names. I was MUCH happier with them than I was with the Muskogean names, which include quite a bit more speculation. Bob ________________________________ From: Alan H. Hartley [mailto:ahartley at d.umn.edu] Sent: Fri 3/2/2007 7:13 PM To: Koontz John E Cc: Red Newt; Rankin, Robert L Subject: Re: Etymologies of some state names Koontz John E wrote: > I'm puzzled here. Is there a Dhegiha placenames part? Are we thinking of > two different books? I was thinking of one organzied by states. I'm > pretty sure all contributors are named, but not necessarily by entry. > I'm pretty sure I was a contributor, too, at various points, for > Mississippi Valley Siouan languages generally, but mostly Dhegiha. > However, I only commented on particular names in lists arranged by states. > I should point out that Bob was also probably a contributor for all of > Mississippi Valley Siouan, Southeastern Siouan, and actually probably also > for Southeastern languages generally, Siouan and otherwise. In Bright's _Native American Placenames of the United States_, there's no separate Dhegiha part and no arrangement by states: the dictionary is entirely alphabetical by placename. Contributors are listed in Acknowledgments in the front matter, not by entry or specialty. Koontz is listed, Rankin is not; neither is cited in References. Alan --------------------------------- Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Mon Mar 5 19:59:48 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:59:48 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Sun 3/4/2007 7:51 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. Make that *woNs at pee ~ *wuNs at pii > [...] we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. Make that *moNswape(l)e ~ *woNs at pee. Sorry for the error! Rory > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. In an earlier posting (May 4, 2004), Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. So if we drop the final (ethnonymic?) -a, consider the initial m to be a tight w before a nasal vowel, and guess that the l was a light rhotic or y to separate the two e syllables, we are essentially there: *moNs8pe(l)e ~ *woNs8pee. From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Mon Mar 5 20:16:06 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:16:06 -0800 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's not Algonquianist usage -- that's French missionary practice of the 17th & 18th centuries. They used it for Algonquian languages, but they also used it when writing Iroquoian languages. As Bob points out, it's equivalent to French 'ou' -- thus, it's primarily used for /w/, /o(:)/ or /u(:)/, depending on context, but sometimes it's even used for /w/ + schwa, or schwa + /w/. Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. Dave >> Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been >> thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that >> it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is >> what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Mar 5 20:37:54 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:37:54 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. Thanks! That should make the original 1673 "Mosopelea" reference something like *moNsupe(l)e ~ *woNsupe(l)e. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clarkbatson at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 00:27:55 2007 From: clarkbatson at hotmail.com (Clark Batson) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:27:55 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you?ll love. Compare products and save at MSN? Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 From FurbeeL at missouri.edu Tue Mar 6 15:04:48 2007 From: FurbeeL at missouri.edu (Furbee, Louanna) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:04:48 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: Hi Mr. Batson, Lots of native american languages have sound distinctions that are hard to represent using just the ordinary alphabet that works more or less ok for European languages like English. So the dots and squiggles are taken (as needed) from the international phonetic alphabet (with which any language sound can be represented - it is a BIG bunch of symbols and modifications of those symbols) for each native american language's alphabet. It is always a struggle to select a sort of minimum set to represent the sounds properly, and at the same time, not be overwhelming. So, about learning linguistics: One of the nicest introductions I know of (it is not complete but a great start) is a little book called LANGUAGE: THE BASICS by R. L. Trask. You can order it from Amazon, they have new and used copies available starting at $1.98 (of course shipping will be more than that). If you get into this field,you could later get a textbook for "doing" linguistics, and a favorite is one by Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams, the title of which is AN INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE. It is $85 new from Amazon and there are used copies of it from $55. Now I have to tell you, it is best to learn the "doing" of linguistics in consultation with a linguist, so I suggest you try to locate a linguist who does research on your language. I don't know wazhazhe, or who might work on it, but if you will write to Victor Golla (vkg1 at humboldt.edu), the editor of the newsletter of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, he can look up in the society's data base who might be working on it, or put your request in the Newsletter. I'm copying in Golla with this message. Much good fortune in pursuing knowledge of your heritage language. Louanna Furbee -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Clark Batson Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 6:27 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Linguist As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save at MSN? Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 From rankin at ku.edu Tue Mar 6 17:03:22 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:03:22 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: The history of "8" as [w] or [u], French "ou" is interesting. It's Greek actually. It is an upsilon written on top of an omicron. In Greek the upsilon had taken on the pronunciation of [u-umlaut], so the actual sound [u], as in 'boot' had to be written as a digraph. As in French and some Slavic, the digraph was chosen, but unlike those languages, the Greeks elected to write it for a period of time as a single symbol, with one of the letters over the other. This 8-like symbol (with the open top) was also taken into the Cyrillic alphabet and this explains why [u] is written with a symbol that looks like in Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, etc. Their Y is derived from the Greek 8. I'm afraid I can't elucidate the colonial French usage of it during the 17th century, but that's its source. bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 2:16 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos That's not Algonquianist usage -- that's French missionary practice of the 17th & 18th centuries. They used it for Algonquian languages, but they also used it when writing Iroquoian languages. As Bob points out, it's equivalent to French 'ou' -- thus, it's primarily used for /w/, /o(:)/ or /u(:)/, depending on context, but sometimes it's even used for /w/ + schwa, or schwa + /w/. Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. Dave >> Pardon me; I think I was confused on a point of orthography. I had been >> thinking the Algonquianist use of 8 was for schwa; I seem to recall now that >> it is either for /wa/ or some kind of long /oo/. I believe the @ sign is >> what we've been using for schwa, isn't it? > W usually next to a vowel. [u] generally otherwise. From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 6 19:45:30 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 19:45:30 +0000 Subject: Linguist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The dots and squiggles are a difficult one and the easy way is to ask a linguist if you can find one, because they are used differently for different languages very often. For the theory I read Sapir's 'Language" when I was an undergraduate and before I ever became a linguist and found it facinating and informative. I think the dots and squiggles shouldn't be too much of a problem with Wazhazhe, because as i remember it the sound system isn't too complicated. Best of luck Bruce Clark Batson wrote: As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. Clark Batson _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you?ll love. Compare products and save at MSN? Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 22:06:35 2007 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:06:35 -0800 Subject: Calling Brian Gordon Message-ID: Sorry to send this to the whole list, but I don't know Brian's private email address. Brian, I'm told you did a paper a while back on definiteness in Omaha-Ponca. Would you be willing to share a copy of that with me? As you may already know from my prior emails, I am working on Biloxi definiteness, focus, and topicalization. Thanks. Dave --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 00:17:28 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:17:28 -0600 Subject: Linguist Message-ID: I'd be happy to help you out with those dots and squiggles as they apply to wazhazhe. The dots you refer to must be those in La Flesche. I do have an explanation of how the orthography of the LF dictionary (except for a number of errors and a number of Omaha words) compares with the standard Siouanist usage in Osage Grammar p.80. There are only a few characters (including a couple of squiggles, and nasal "tails" on the vowels) to learn for Osage that would seem unlike English characters, and I'd be happy to help you learn them. You can call me at my office in Tulsa, Inter Lingua Inc. Carolyn Quintero -----Original Message----- >From: Clark Batson >Sent: Mar 5, 2007 6:27 PM >To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >Subject: Linguist > >As a native person learning his native language, wazhazhe, that knows >nothing about linguistics and is totally confused by all the "dots and >squiggles" linguists seem to love so much. If some of you could offer >suggestions about how a native person would go about learning the basics of >linguistic theory and practice and all the symbols and technical jargon that >goes along with it or a good book to read about it it would be appreciated. > >Clark Batson > >_________________________________________________________________ >Find what you need at prices you?ll love. Compare products and save at MSN? >Shopping. >http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:25:11 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:25:11 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). > > Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. In ou(n)spik? I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that has a k there. Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:19:04 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:19:04 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > ... The impression I get from working with Dave on the Biloxi matter > (just watching him do all the work, actually) is that it involves focus > more than just definiteness. Of course, there's definitely something in the line of focus going on with the more independent -e ~ e that turns up widely in Mississippi Valley, including Omaha-Ponca. That's quite clearly syncrhonically distinct form noun suffixes per se in MV, but I think it is clearly the same element found in contexts like Dakotan miye, niye, etc., where the intrusive -r- surfaces. I suppose we could see archaic Dakota forms like thas^uNke 'his (particular) horse' vs. s^uNka 'horse' as thas^unk=e 'the one that is his horse'. But along the lines I'm thinking this would then mean that the -(r)e on nouns in Dhegiha and IO and would be essentially a bleached focus marker reduced to noun morphology and at the same time occuring in a functioning, non-moribund capacity as -e FOCUS in forms like e-e 'it is the one that' and numerous other contexts. Further afield, e.g., in Mandan and Biloxi it would be more lively and transparent in meaning in all contexts. I tend to think that the demonstrative e 'the aforesaid; it' is the same thing, too. I know you don't trust protean morphemes like this, but we do have some others, e.g., -gaN in OP, that show that a piece of morphology can get caught up and used and reused in various ways, productive and non-productive. > But heck, what do I know? Usually quite a lot in my experience. :-) From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 04:30:32 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:30:32 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can > be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for > clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's > older brother HE shot a deer". Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. > For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old > declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages > I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be > responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. I bewlive -e occurs after verbs, too, in Biloxi, when it is the clause is focussed. I still see the plural markers as something else, even when they mark proximate singulars. > So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and > -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? Or, if it followed a verb where a declarative wasn't appropriate, then it could be a nominalizer or clause final focus marker. Apart from our perennial divergence on *=pi we seem to be on the same page! From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 05:10:22 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:10:22 -0700 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: <20070303062710.27381.qmail@web53810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote: > According to the Siouan comparative dictionary that I looked at with > Bob, the PS focus marker is shown as -ri. This of course perfectly > matches -di in Biloxi and -ri in Hidatsa. Was that -(r)i considered > epenthetic in PS? By some, and by others not. Where cases like this are involved, the ms of the CSD is essentially a work in progress, and definitely a delicate and perhaps not entirely consistent compromise between different views of different people or perhaps even of the same people at different times. > I've always thought this proposal about Polynesian roots ending in > consonants seems a bit strange given that many of the languages, e.g., > Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori, don't allow words to end in consonants at > all. Looking at a Polynesian root ending in a consonant just seems, > well, shocking. (My apologies for this side excursion, valuable in the Siouan context mainly for the parallel with occasional "extra" consonants appearing between Siouan roots and following elements. JEK) Yes, of course, final -C is completely absent in all Polynesian languages so far as I am aware. All original CVCVC roots are reduced to CVCV form. But I think it's well established though that the -C in the CVCV-Cia passives of these CVCV roots is in principle a reflex of the final -C in the original CVCVC forms. I believe the evidence for this is that the CVCVC form (or at least the final -C) is retained elsewhere in Austronesian. Of course, the analogical changes in -C of -Cia, or the paradigmatic leveling and shifting of -Cia allomorphs, however you like to think of it, results in the "attested -C" being unreliable in specific cases. If you find -t some places and -k others, you have to resolve the situation by looking outside of Polynesian. I'm mainly aware of this matter, I have to confess, as a result of exercises in morphology books. All things David Rood used with his classes I was in, I think. The examples stuck with me because of an interest in Polynesian languages. A few Net references: http://crlc.anu.edu.au/seminars/series2_2001.html > Andrew Pawley: Proto-Polynesian *-Cia ABSTRACT: Individual Polynesian > languages generally have between six and 12 suffixes having the shape > -Cia (where C is a variable consonant), -ia, -a, -na, or -ina. In most > languages the suffixes can be considered alternants of a single suffix > (cover symbol -CIA). Among contemporary languages -CIA suffixes exhibit > the following range of functions, though no one language has the full > range: (i) marks imperative mood, (ii) derives passive verb, ... Pawley concentrates on the function of the suffix. For a discussion of the allomorphy and its source in a limited context, see http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers/Van%20den%20Berg-Vitu%20passive.pdf (Discussing Vitu, non-Polynesian) > Rene van den Berg: From a historical perspective, this division between > the three transitive verb classes is phonologically based. The verb > roots in class 1 and 2 originally ended in in vowel, to which the object > suffixes were directly attached. The verb roots in class 3, on the other > hand, ended in a consonant, to which the Proto Oceanic transitivizing > suffix *i was attached, followed by object suffixes. When final > consonants were lost, the protected final consonants in these verb forms > were retained as thematic consonants in presentday Vitu. Although there > are a number of exceptions, this seems to offer a plausible analysis. > Interestingly, most loanwords from Tok Pisin take the allomorph nia, > e.g. peninia .to paint. (TP penim) and kikinia .to kick (a ball), ... I couldn't find anything just showing widespread Austronesian cognate sets, but I think this "protected context for old final consonant" analysis is not restricted to students of Vitu and other Oceanic languages. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 05:20:07 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:20:07 -0700 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, David Costa wrote: > Technically, it's not exactly an '8' the way the French wrote it -- they > actually wrote it as an '8' with an open top, often a descending character. > But to make life simple, it's usually printed with plain '8'. In other words, it's a u stacked on an o: a sort of ligaturization of two letters that work together, like the ae or oe ligatures. Sometimes you get a "funny character" out of this process, like aesc "ae" or 8, and sometimes a diacritic, like umlaut (stacked e) or cedilla (subposed s or c, I think) or tilde (stacked n). I've always wondered what hacek and ogonek were. Hacek might be a z, so that s^ = sz, etc. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 08:34:58 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:34:58 -0700 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' Message-ID: The CSD, following Matthews 1958, reconstructs a form for PS grizzly bear. Matthews suggests *matho', but the CSD, following the trend initiated in Hollow's 1970 Mandan dictionary, of seeing nasal stops as nasalized resonants, offers *waNtho'. The forms collated under this reconstruction, with some slight alterations in notation, are Ma maNto? (underlying waNto?) (Carter) Te maNtho' OP maNc^hu' (with diminutive c^h for th) Ks miNc^ho' Os miNcho' (with c = ts, irregular before o) Qu maNtho' IO maNtho' Wi maNc^o' (Pre Wi maNtho') Of *uN.'thi Tu (ha)nuB'thih (Mithun) (cf. *muNt[h]i WM) This is one of the rather rare (post)aspirate t sets, but it is irregular in having the *th as th, not h in Dakotan. The Of and Tu forms are also listed in 'black bear' *huNt-, withthe suggestion that there may be some confusion of the two stems there. The vowel iN in Ks and Os in Dhegiha is also irregular for *aN, but the same thing occurs in the 'bow' set, which is a loan from Algonquian. La (i)ta(zipa) (taking earlier *maNta(zipa) as a first person) OP maN'de Ks miN'j^e Os miNce Qu maN'tte IO maN'hdu (Pre IO *maNhtu < *maNtku with regular metathesis) Wi maNaNc^gu (Pre Wi *maN'tku) Cf. Proto-Algonquian me?tekw-a 'wood' + ANIMATE I recently occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for unknown cluster initial leading to preaspirates some palces and fricatives others. I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Under this are collated (per Aubin) Fox mahkwa Cree maskwa Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) Shawnee mkwa etc., including Arapohoe and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not indicated. Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is 'male', and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial for making medials into forms capable of standing alone./ I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. What I've noticed is a dgree of parallism with the 'bow' term. Thjis is in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. - In both cases we have Siouan forms lacking an element that might match the animate marker -a. - In both cases we have PA mV lining up with maN most places in Siouam, but miN in Ks and Os. After that it's a bit more variable. - PA ...?tkw appears as Siouan ...t-e or ...tku (in Winnebago-Chiwere), in which -e is a Siouan noun forming suffix, but - PA ...0kw lines up with ...tho in Siouan. It's not clear if there's any connection, but if there is, - Why should ?tk should match t ~ tk, but 0k match th. - Why should we keep -u in one case but -o in the other. One possible reason why 0k became th would be the following vowel -o. While this was reduced to w we would have a cluster kw which seems to be unstable in Siouan. In 'cat' and 'squash' it gets this treatment. Da *km (kw before a nasal vowel) IO dw (earlier tw) Wi c^(V)w (earlier tw) Dh *kdh (essentially kr) Of course it's not clear why *tw would be preferred across the board in bear. Later reduction to -to is not too different from -ku with 'bow'. From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:20:09 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:20:09 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers Message-ID: > So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and > -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? I don't think it could be cognate with the Mississippi Valley Siouan declarative marker, *-re (Dak. -ye, as in yelo, etc.). As I recall from Sara's comparative paper on that, it's a MVS feature. Outside of MVS, both Biloxi and Mandan have gendered grammer, but it's different. Crow and Hidatsa seem to have lost it entirely. From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Mar 7 15:49:05 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:49:05 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). >> >> Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. > > In ou(n)spik? Yes. > I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that > has a k there. That's an idea. It seems to be a direct object marker in Biloxi. Do we have any "article" information on Tutelo or Ofo? > Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? Musogran ??? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:53:42 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:53:42 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: > . . . if loss of the initial labial /m/ is a single event in Ofo-Biloxi, and if Mosopelea is the ancestral name of the Ofo, then the 17th century Mosopelea would have to be ancestral to the Biloxi as well. No, the loss of initial m/w would have to precede the split of BI and OF. > I don't see why we are assuming that Ofo-ic speakers were an ethnic singularity at this time. Swanton's account makes it clear that the Uspe and the Ofo-gula were two separate groups in the period from 1699 to 1722. The Ofo-gula can certainly be identified with the Ofo as represented linguistically by Rosa Pierrette. The Tunica knew her group as the Ushpi, which can equally certainly be identified with the Uspe. Either name could be derived from Mosopelea, but not both at once. No, one is a Tunica language adaptation of the name, the other is the Siouan progression via sound change. > Under the circumstances, I think the Uspe are the better choice. Swanton gives the vowels in the Tunica version as long, with the first being circumflex: Uus^pii. The various French versions given are Ouispe (/wispe/), Oussipe's (/usipee/), Ounspie (/uNspii/), and Onspe'e (oNspee). We could reasonably reconstruct this as something like *woNs8pee ~ *wuNs8pii. I think it's a mistake to assume that a spelling like 'ouispe' contains the original labial. That was long-gone and probably never actually attested from speakers. That's just initial [u] and the "i" probably comes from the "oussipe" term. I also doubt that it's possible to infer length from what may have been a circumflex in somebody's 17th cent. North American French handwriting. French spelling then, like English spelling, was very idiosyncratic and not all these fellows were terribly literate (compare Lewis and Clark for example). > . . . Michael McCafferty has stated that the first record of the Mosopelea name was on Marquette's map of the Mississippi of 1673, in which it was written MONS8PELEA, with the initial vowel nasalized and the second (I think) schwa. This map is not based on first hand information though. It has a variety of ethnoynms that were collected indirectly through contact tribes. The expedition didn't arrive at the Mississippi via the Mosopeleas. There are other maps and accounts in which it's made clear that knowledge of the Mosopeleas came via other tribes who reported their earlier presence well up the Ohio. The notation on the maps reads (in French) "eight towns destroyed". These were people who were remembered, and that may account for the initial [m]. We have no way to know when the M disappeared in native speech, and it's presence may only be attested in the name as preserved by OTHER, non-Siouan, tribes. It cannot, as far as I know, be dated to the 17th century definitively. We just don't know. > Could you remind me again: in OVS, what is the relationship tree of Tutelo, Ofo and Biloxi? Any sense on the time depth? Ofo and Biloxi are one subgroup. Virginia Siouan the other. Giulia and I have a paper on this in the Siebert Festschrift. Time depth is very difficult, but I talk about it in the Maize paper I mentioned. Bob From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 15:54:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:54:19 -0600 Subject: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos Message-ID: We do. Tutelo had a -k article that is attested in the transcriptions made by Edward Sapir circa 1910. So that's a possibility. Biloxi has a -k nominal suffix that Dave Kaufman and I argue about but can't yet identify. It may or may not be a variant of BI. /kaN/. I can't recall any such article from Ofo, but there's so little to go on. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 9:49 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Autonym of Mosopeleas-Ouesperies-Ofos >> > (I have no real info on where the -k comes from). >> >> Swanton thought that was a misprint for e. > > In ou(n)spik? Yes. > I was wondering if it was the article, though I guess it's Bilkoxi that > has a k there. That's an idea. It seems to be a direct object marker in Biloxi. Do we have any "article" information on Tutelo or Ofo? > Or could it be a noun-final particle of Musogran origin? Musogran ??? Rory From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Wed Mar 7 17:09:58 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:09:58 -0700 Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) Message-ID: The CSD includes a set - actually glossed 'vermin 4' that is based on forms like Te gnas^ka' (Pre Da *knaNs^ka) IO waagraN'ske Wi wakaNnaN's^ge Qu waxno's^ka ~ wanaN'ska These are all 'frog', and require only PMV *wa-kraNs^-ka, but further afield we find Bi * kanac^ki 'wood tick' I wanted to add a resemblant Algonquian 'frog' word I've run into. It was provided by a Meskwaki aquaintance at work: He spelled it ken wa ska and I thought it sounded like [kenwas^k]. (I was pursuing my project of looking for possible Algonquian glosses of "Tonto." to match those for "Kemosabe.") John E. Koontz http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 16:57:41 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:57:41 -0800 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + > ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown > cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when not in clusters). > Under this are collated (per Aubin) > > Fox mahkwa > Cree maskwa > Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) > Shawnee mkwa > > etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. More for the collection: Miami mahkwa Ojibwe makwa Munsee Delaware maxkw Massachusett mashq Arapaho w?x > My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it > means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not > indicated. No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' reconstructs pretty cleanly. > Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is > 'male', Right. > and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part of the final, it's just a gender marker. > I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial > for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of */ma0kwa/. > I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is > in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist > that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are > some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan forms beyond that. Dave From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 17:22:28 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:22:28 -0800 Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:$ke:ha/ 'frog'. The final syllable would be voiceless, and hence inaudible to many listeners. >>From what I can tell, this word seems to be found ONLY in Sauk and Meskwaki. Dave > From: Koontz John E > Reply-To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:09:58 -0700 (MST) > To: Siouan List > Subject: PS *karaN's^ka 'creepy crawly' (mostly frogs) > > The CSD includes a set - actually glossed 'vermin 4' that is based on > forms like > > Te gnas^ka' (Pre Da *knaNs^ka) > IO waagraN'ske > Wi wakaNnaN's^ge > Qu waxno's^ka ~ wanaN'ska > > These are all 'frog', and require only PMV *wa-kraNs^-ka, but further > afield we find > > Bi * kanac^ki 'wood tick' > > I wanted to add a resemblant Algonquian 'frog' word I've run into. It was > provided by a Meskwaki aquaintance at work: > > He spelled it ken wa ska and I thought it sounded like [kenwas^k]. > > (I was pursuing my project of looking for possible Algonquian glosses of > "Tonto." to match those for "Kemosabe.") > > John E. Koontz > http://spot.colorado.edu/~koontz From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 17:44:18 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:44:18 -0600 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' Message-ID: And of course the similar phoneme in Muskogean varies in pronunciation between voiceless L and theta in at least Choctaw and Creek (probably the rest too). Some, as you would expect, are convinced that the latter pronunciation is English influence, but I don't think there's any real proof of that. Early writers often wrote "thl". Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 10:57 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' > I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + > ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown > cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when not in clusters). > Under this are collated (per Aubin) > > Fox mahkwa > Cree maskwa > Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) > Shawnee mkwa > > etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. More for the collection: Miami mahkwa Ojibwe makwa Munsee Delaware maxkw Massachusett mashq Arapaho w?x > My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it > means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are not > indicated. No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' reconstructs pretty cleanly. > Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is > 'male', Right. > and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part of the final, it's just a gender marker. > I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial > for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of */ma0kwa/. > I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is > in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist > that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are > some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan forms beyond that. Dave From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 18:05:21 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:05:21 -0800 Subject: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In that connection, it's worth pointing out that the relevant phoneme does *not* appear as a voiceless lateral in any Algonquian language. That's one argument for reconstructing it as theta. Dave > > And of course the similar phoneme in Muskogean varies in pronunciation between > voiceless L and theta in at least Choctaw and Creek (probably the rest too). > Some, as you would expect, are convinced that the latter pronunciation is > English influence, but I don't think there's any real proof of that. Early > writers often wrote "thl". > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa > Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 10:57 AM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly' > > >> I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' + >> ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown >> cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others. > > Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been > securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most > typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages. > >> I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l. > > Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/, > and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when > not in clusters). > >> Under this are collated (per Aubin) >> >> Fox mahkwa >> Cree maskwa >> Odawa mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes) >> Shawnee mkwa >> >> etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes. > > More for the collection: > > Miami mahkwa > Ojibwe makwa > Munsee Delaware maxkw > Massachusett mashq > Arapaho w?x > >> My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it >> means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are >> not >> indicated. > > No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear' > reconstructs pretty cleanly. > >> Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is >> 'male', > > Right. > >> and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms. > > No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part > of the final, it's just a gender marker. > >> I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial >> for making medials into forms capable of standing alone. > > Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form > final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however, > this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no > Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of > */ma0kwa/. > >> I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct. > > Right, it's just the animate singular marker. > >> What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term. This is >> in the nature of exploring a hypothesis. I am not yet ready to insist >> that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'. It's just that there are >> some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed. > > It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the > Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian > loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/, > if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan > forms beyond that. > > Dave > > > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 18:05:43 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:05:43 -0600 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' Message-ID: OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. Bob From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 18:12:14 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:12:14 -0800 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. Dave > > OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. > > > > Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. > > > > Bob > > > From poulsente at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 18:40:06 2007 From: poulsente at hotmail.com (tom poulsen) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:40:06 -0700 Subject: time frame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 19:23:09 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:23:09 -0600 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' Message-ID: That's quite interesting. You wrote it with a $ and I entered that as an s-hacek in the database. Then I selected and copied the entry (with s-hacek) and pasted it in my confirming email. And it comes out a plain S on the Siouan List. That means that the font "knows" that the nearest thing to s-hacek is plain S, and it substitutes it. Microsoft is going to "correct" your behavior whether you like it or not, I guess. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:12 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: CSD 'vermin 4' Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. Dave > > OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. > > > > Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. > > > > Bob > > > From rankin at ku.edu Wed Mar 7 19:33:19 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:33:19 -0600 Subject: time frame Message-ID: Nobody really has the slightest idea. Archaeologists have tended to speculate over the years that the Siouan tribes were pushed out of the Ohio Valley by Iroquoian raids. This is guesswork. It might be a possible reason for Dhegiha movements, but applied to the whole of Siouan, it's anachronistic, I think. The *only* evidence that I know of is the fact that the Catawban and Yuchi families are distantly related and both are in the SE. There is certainly no realistic time frame, and, as far as I know, no way to acquire one at present. DNA studies over time might elucidate some of these problems, but this technology is in its infancy, and even its most vocal proponents (like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) admit that it will be a long time before "the dust settles". I'm not even that optimistic. My 2 cents worth. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of tom poulsen Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:40 PM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: time frame can anyone tell me the time frame of the western sioux migrations into the great plains areas. Did the Lakota people etc, live in the upper south? ________________________________ Buy what you want when you want it on Sympatico / MSN Shopping From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Wed Mar 7 19:29:23 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:29:23 -0600 Subject: Biloxi nominal markers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can >> be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for >> clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's >> older brother HE shot a deer". > > Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. I might have to read through a few Dorsey stories to find one, so let me temporarily retract the above statement until I do. But yes, I think we could probably call it a focus marker. I'm assuming this is the same as the generic deictic e which can stand alone. >> For verbs, I've been thinking for some time that there is an old >> declarative e that pops up now and then in OP and other Siouan languages >> I've looked at, and which, in conjunction with a preceding -a, might be >> responsible for Winnebago -ire and OP -i. > > I bewlive -e occurs after verbs, too, in Biloxi, when it is the clause is > focussed. If we accept that Biloxi -di arises from -e, with preceding epenthetic r, -(r)e, with raising of e to i and shifting of r to d, then yes, it's very common after verbs in some stories. > I still see the plural markers as something else, even when they mark proximate singulars. I acknowledge that. Let me take a stab at summarizing our two models for the OP bi and i particles. Model 1. In proto-MVS, there was a pluralizing particle *pi, or perhaps *api. In OP, this particle diverged into two functionally different particles, bi and i, in which the latter lost the initial /p/. The i particle was retained for pluralizing, while the bi particle was used for reporting hearsay. This development affected only OP. Model 2. In proto-MVS, there were three particles, *a, *e, and *pi. *e was a declarative or focus marker that came at the end. *a may have been the original augment, or some particle conveying a third party active sense. *pi may have been a "softening" particle used for hearsay, generalizing, or politeness. *a came directly after the verb, and could be followed either by *e or *pi. *pi was used only after *a, but *e could come alone directly after the verb. The possibilities were: [Verb]-e; [Verb]-a-e; [Verb]-a-pi. The [Verb]-a-e combination needed an epenthetic separation, which developed as [Verb]-a(y)e, [Verb]-aiye, [Verb]-aire. In Winnebago, the latter form was retained for 3rd person plural; in OP, the final -e syllable, together with its epenthetic consonant, was generally dropped, leaving [Verb]-ai. At the same time, the /a/ was generally lost whenever the verb stem ended in a vowel. Its third party active, augmentive, semantic sense was shifted onto the sound that followed it, which could be either *=pi or *=i(re). These two secondary augments developed differently in different branches of MVS, with *=pi completely taking over in Dakotan; *=pi being used as the augment in most positions of Winnebago with *=ire retained for 3rd person plural; and *=i(re) used as the action or augment marker in OP, with *=pi being retained for marking hearsay and hypothesis. I'd consider either of these models possible, and on the table. Model 2 has been developing gradually in my mind for some years, and it owes a lot to ideas that you have suggested on this list, including *a as an action/agentive marker, *e as a focus marker, and the minimal-augment paradigm. It does not have the advantage of having been vetted by the very broad and rather deep knowledge of all the Siouan languages that you and Bob have at hand. >> So how about Biloxi -di following verbs as originally a declarative, and >> -di following a noun as an emphatic summarization of the noun? > Or, if it followed a verb where a declarative wasn't appropriate, then it > could be a nominalizer or clause final focus marker. > Apart from our perennial divergence on *=pi we seem to be on the same > page! Yay! Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at earthlink.net Wed Mar 7 19:43:18 2007 From: pankihtamwa at earthlink.net (David Costa) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:43:18 -0800 Subject: CSD 'vermin 4' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Microsoft knows what's good for us even if we don't. > > That's quite interesting. You wrote it with a $ and I entered that as an > s-hacek in the database. Then I selected and copied the entry (with s-hacek) > and pasted it in my confirming email. And it comes out a plain S on the > Siouan List. That means that the font "knows" that the nearest thing to > s-hacek is plain S, and it substitutes it. Microsoft is going to "correct" > your behavior whether you like it or not, I guess. > > Bob > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa > Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 12:12 PM > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu > Subject: Re: CSD 'vermin 4' > > > > Sorry, I just rechecked -- that /sk/ should be /$k/. > > Dave > > >> >> OTHLGS[ Meskwaki & Sauk /konwa:ske:ha/ 'frog' JEK & Dave Costa. >> >> >> >> Added to database 7 March 2007. Nice find. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> > > > > From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 8 00:52:54 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:52:54 -0700 Subject: time frame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, tom poulsen wrote: > can anyone tell me the time frame of the western sioux migrations into > the great plains areas. Did the Lakota people etc, live in the upper > south? If you want a collection of semi-standard views by archaeologists, see Plains Indians, A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups (Paperback) by Karl H. Schlesier (Editor) Paperback: 512 pages Publisher: Univ of Oklahoma Pr; Reprint edition (March 1995) Language: English ISBN-10: 0806126418 ISBN-13: 978-0806126418 Ironically, KS's own contributions, dealing with Tanoan, seem to me to be the shakiest. Archaeologists currently tend to associate the early Dakota with the in-place development of something they call Psinomani, i.e., psiN-o'maNniN 'rice in-walking' = 'rice collecting'. I'm not sure of the archaeological pronunciation, but I think it must be close to cinnamony. (Now I'm hungry.) (Another Dakota-named archaeological expression, from northwestern Iowa, I think, is Chanyata, i.e., c^haNyata 'in/to the woods', if I remember the right gloss.) Psinomani is somewhat varied in its subsistance and residential patterns, rather like the Dakotan groups themselves, but tends to be associated with certain pottery types that are vaguely Oneota-like, but not as ornately trailed or incised. I think it dates back to c. CE 1000 in the general area of northern Minnesota and the eastern Dakotas, but I'd rather not be held to the precise date. This association and Psinomani itself may not be the last word on the subject from archaeologists. Historically, they've waffled quite a bit for Dakotan, especially Assiniboine-Stoney. A lot of the archeological work on Psinomani is fairly recent. Check the list archives. I think we've discussed this before. Archaeologists do usually now assume that the Dakota developed in place in Minnesota, emerging from earlier people there, and have for some time, and I tend to agree with them for various reasons, but to be fair, archaeologists have been very reluctant to postulate "migration" or even "outside influence" theories for the last 30 years or so. Before that everything was explained with at least "outside influences" and actual "migration theories" get increasingly popular as you go back. They were a staple of popular and scholarly theory in the 1800s and before. I think we are now tending to swing back toward migrations, perhaps in a more sophisticated way. Note that when I say that archaeologists think of the Dakota as emerging in place I am referring to the Dakota as a cultural entity. As a rule American archaeologists do not concern themselves much with language when they are building their models. To be fair, lexemes seem to be very poorly preserved in most precontact sites north of the Rio Grande del Sur. (I find that very frustrating.) Anyway, archaeologists a few years ago were not in the least concerned about the contradictions inherent in proposing that all the various Siouan groups evolved in place. Their model humans had physical remains, made pottery, lithic artifacts and houses, erected mounds, dug pits and lit fires. They frequently practiced subsistence and occasionally conducted economic activities or integrated themselves politically across extended areas, but they never actually spoke, and they only seldom did anything involving genes. I think that stage has passed, but most of what you find in print will neglect linguistics. Almost the only exception to this linguistic neglect was an implicit reliance on any and all schemes for associating languages into very high level phylum groupings. Of course, I have to admit that detailed lower-level linguistic information of any other kind was and actually still is a bit hard to come by ... so essentially they were using all the easily available linguistic data and, like the early long rangers, not worrying too much about linguistic processes just yet. From John.Koontz at colorado.edu Thu Mar 8 01:30:45 2007 From: John.Koontz at colorado.edu (Koontz John E) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:30:45 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: Posted for RLR. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:16:23 -0600 From: "Rankin, Robert L" To: Koontz John E Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Mar 8 14:43:00 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:43:00 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rood at spot.Colorado.EDU Thu Mar 8 15:46:08 2007 From: rood at spot.Colorado.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:46:08 -0700 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We use both negation and question patterns for that kind of "softening" of commands and suggestions. "Don't you want to come with us?" is less abrupt and demanding than "Do you want to come with us?" There is no logical negative in the first example -- I'm not asking "Is it the case that you do not want to come with us?". This of course leads to what speakers of languages like Lakota and Japanese perceive as the "backwards" use of "yes" and "no" as answers. If you answer to the negative, as Lakota does, you would use "yes" to say "I don't want to" and "no" to say "you're wrong -- I do want to". Instead, English ignores the negative and uses "yes" for "I do want to" for both questions. I think this would extend to situations where the listener is not involved, but I don't have time to cogitate on possible examples right now. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: > > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" > without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of > grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It > can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are > many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". > > It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person > references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do > we ever use this for third person or other situations where the > listener is not involved? > > Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 8 17:22:49 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:22:49 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: This is Paul Hopper's book "Grammaticalization", which ought to be in the UNL library. He has a bunch of examples. I added a lot more from my native "Southern English" for my classes. I'll try to find the handout. I don't have any trouble myself using "lets" with a 3rd person. For example, I can say: "Lets him drive the Ford and I'll take the Chevy." "Lets you take the Ford. . . ." is even better. I misspoke in my earlier post. Hopper's term for this usage of "lets" is 'adhortative' rather than just 'hortative'. Bob ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Thu Mar 8 17:31:23 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:31:23 -0600 Subject: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) Message-ID: Sorry, I forgot Hopper's "Grammaticalization" co-author, Elizabeth Closs Traugott. ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Rory M Larson Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 8:43 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd) > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets" without the apostrophe. He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of grammaticalization. It can be second person, as in John's examples. It can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed." There are many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us". It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device. Do we ever use this for third person or other situations where the listener is not involved? Rory From rankin at ku.edu Sun Mar 11 15:59:52 2007 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:59:52 -0500 Subject: Siouan Conference in May. Passport info. Message-ID: The current processing time for US passport applications is about 10 weeks. For anyone who hasn't applied yet, that's starting to cut things a little bit close. Application form can be found on-line at www.travel.state.gov , or at most local post offices. Filing is done at the Post Office and you need your birth certificate. For an additional fee you can get "expedited service" in about 3 weeks instead of 10. That's what I'll end up doing since I had to order a copy of my birth certificate just this last week. Bob From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 12:38:18 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:38:18 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070214125152.02237b80@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Mon Mar 12 17:29:18 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:29:18 -0600 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <394730.73349.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >Dear Mary >Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >Yours >Bruce > >Marino wrote: >Hello Ardis, > >The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 >May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour >the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the >CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter >as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going >to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents >of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA >Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions >of the latter would be most appealing to our people. > >It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included >on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your >local passport office. > >Best, >Mary > >PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it >works out. > >At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later >>it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >> >> >> >>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette <kdshea at ku.edu> >>wrote: >>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last >>year's. I have a current passport. >>Kathy Shea >>________________________________ >>From: >>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>on behalf of Marino >>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Hello all, >>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite >>answer now. >>Mary >>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >> >> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know >> if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to >> post something soon on the Siouan list. >> Randy >> > > >The >all-new >Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >Internet provider. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 20:31:41 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:31:41 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070312112719.02236840@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Mary I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. --------------------------------- Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Mon Mar 12 21:15:58 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:15:58 -0600 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <639737.65041.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. Best, Mary At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >Thanks Mary >I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? >Yours >Bruce > >Marino wrote: >Hello Bruce > >The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association >meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that >the CLA program is now being finalized. > >Best, >Mary > > >At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>Dear Mary >>Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >>Yours >>Bruce >> >>Marino wrote: >>Hello Ardis, >>The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >>Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 >>May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour >>the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into >>the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the >>latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we >>going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the >>contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know >>the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which >>sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. >>It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >>children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included >>on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your >>local passport office. >>Best, >>Mary >>PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if >>it works out. >>At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later >>>it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >>> >>> >>>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette <kdshea at ku.edu> >>>wrote: >>>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last >>>year's. I have a current passport. >>>Kathy Shea >>>________________________________ >>>From: >>>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>on behalf of Marino >>>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Hello all, >>>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite >>>answer now. >>>Mary >>>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >>> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know >>> if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to >>> post something soon on the Siouan list. >>> Randy >> >> >>The >>all-new >>Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >>Internet provider. > > > >Now you can >scan >emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new >Yahoo! >Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 12 21:37:22 2007 From: shokoohbanou at yahoo.co.uk (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:37:22 +0000 Subject: 2007 SCLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20070312151456.02230118@sask.usask.ca> Message-ID: Super 8 is my preferred motel. Shame about the tree line. I was looking forward to a primordial forest. How much further would I have to go? Bruce Marino wrote: What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. Best, Mary At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Thanks Mary I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Bruce The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard that the CLA program is now being finalized. Best, Mary At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Mary Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on Yours Bruce Marino wrote: Hello Ardis, The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - 29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most appealing to our people. It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require children of any age to either have their own passports or to be included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details with your local passport office. Best, Mary PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if it works out. At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette wrote: I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed last year's. I have a current passport. Kathy Shea ________________________________ From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Marino Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC Hello all, I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a definite answer now. Mary At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. Randy The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net Tue Mar 13 01:07:17 2007 From: cqcqcq1 at earthlink.net (Carolyn Quintero) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:07:17 -0400 Subject: 2007 SCLC Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marino at skyway.usask.ca Tue Mar 13 16:33:30 2007 From: marino at skyway.usask.ca (Marino) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:33:30 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Re: 2007 SCLC Message-ID: This should have gone to Bruce, I think. Mary >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:56:58 -0600 >To: Carolyn Quintero >From: Marino >Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC > >Right on, Carolyn. There actually isn't a treeline; what happens is that >as you trudge northwards on snowshoes with the wind howling in your ears, >the trees get smaller and smaller, but we're not actually quite that far >north. All the vegetation is pretty well normal size here, and by 24 May >we should have full spring. Hard to predict, though; the weather god >might arrange some special effects for you if you ask him nicely. I have >what looks to be primordial forest in my back garden, but it isn't, >really. Has Longfellow gotten on to the Siouan list? You'd need to be >going to Nova Scotia, anyway. > >I'll see what I can do about primordial stuff and also about Super 8. I'm >not easily offended, we get lame Usonian jokes all the time. > >Best, >Mary > > >At 07:07 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: > >>Surely primordial forest is almost the opposite of tree line. You seem >>to have slightly offended Mary. I imagine she'll get lots of the "far >>north" teasings. >> >> >> >>I think the forest that still stands in primeval anyway, not primordial, >>n'est-ce pas? >> >> >> >>You naughty old boy, you. >> >>OG >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: shokooh Ingham >>Sent: Mar 12, 2007 5:37 PM >>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>Super 8 is my preferred motel. Shame about the tree line. I was looking >>forward to a primordial forest. How much further would I have to go? >>Bruce >>Marino wrote: >>What is the Super 8? We are nowhere near the treeline, colleagues. We >>are at approximately 52 degrees N latitude. >>Best, >>Mary >>At 02:31 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>>Thanks Mary >>>I'll be there. Do you have the Super 8 up there by the tree line? >>>Yours >>>Bruce >>>Marino wrote: >>>Hello Bruce >>>The dates for SCLC are 24-25 May. The Canadian Linguistics Association >>>meeting starts on 26 May and continues through 29 May. I just heard >>>that the CLA program is now being finalized. >>>Best, >>>Mary >>>At 06:38 AM 3/12/2007, you wrote: >>>>Dear Mary >>>>Can I check with you which dates were in fact decided on >>>>Yours >>>>Bruce >>>>Marino wrote: >>>>Hello Ardis, >>>>The dates we are looking at are: either 24-25 May or 30-31 May. The >>>>Canadian Linguistics Association is meeting here (Saskatoon) from 26 - >>>>29 May,as part of the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. I >>>>favour the earlier dates (24-25) for the SCLC, so that we could >>>>continue into the CLA meetings, if necessary, because some would like >>>>to attend the latter as well as the SCLC. There are some undecided >>>>matters: 1) Are we going to have a comparative grammar workshop, or >>>>discussions about the contents of the volumes we were planning last >>>>year? 2) We don't yet know the CLA Program (soon to be available, I >>>>gather) - so we don't know which sessions of the latter would be most >>>>appealing to our people. >>>>It would be great if you could come. Both Canada and the US require >>>>children of any age to either have their own passports or to be >>>>included on their parents' passports. You need to check the details >>>>with your local passport office. >>>>Best, >>>>Mary >>>>PS: I really like your dissertation and look forward to meeting you if >>>>it works out. >>>>At 06:25 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: >>>>>I'd very much like to come but am not sure due to pregnancy. The >>>>>later it is, the more pregnant I'll be. (And there were some >>>>>complications. Now, everything is good again, but 3 weeks of bed rest >>>>>leaves me less self-assured of how easy everything will go.) >>>>>I've got a passport. Do young children need one as well? >>>>> >>>>>On 2/9/07, Shea, Kathleen Dorette >>>>><kdshea at ku.edu> wrote: >>>>>I would like to attend this year's SCLC, especially since I missed >>>>>last year's. I have a current passport. >>>>>Kathy Shea >>>>>________________________________ >>>>>From: >>>>>owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>>> on behalf of Marino >>>>>Sent: Tue 2/6/2007 11:46 AM >>>>>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu >>>>>Subject: Re: 2007 SCLC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hello all, >>>>>I am working on this and will soon have a more detailed message. It >>>>>would really help if I could get some idea of how many will be able to >>>>>attend. I would be glad to hear from anybody who can give me a >>>>>definite answer now. >>>>>Mary >>>>>At 08:56 PM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >>>>> You're right, its Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I don't >>>>> know if the dates are actually finalized yet. I am expecting Mary >>>>> Marino to post something soon on the Siouan list. >>>>> Randy >>> >>> >>>The >>>all-new >>>Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your >>>Internet provider. >> >> >>Now you can >>scan >>emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new >>Yahoo! >>Mail. >> >> >> >>What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of >>your email personality. Take the quiz at the >>Yahoo! >>Mail Championship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Mar 17 03:55:01 2007 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:55:01 -0500 Subject: Generic deictic in OP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A couple of weeks ago, John wrote: >On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote: >> For nouns, we seem to have a generic deictic e which, at least in OP, can >> be placed after a noun to sort of sum up the previous noun phrase for >> clarity of feeding into the following verb, in the manner of: "My friend's >> older brother HE shot a deer". > > Could you provide the example? I'm guessing this is the focus marker -e. Sorry to be slow about getting back to you on this. I've just looked through a couple of the Dorsey historical accounts, from 399 to 404, and found two. 400:11-13 KkI UmaN'haN ama' gai' tHE: UmaN'haN-he'be riNkHe', ija'je radai' tHE, e' wara'?ii tHEdi'hi kkI, mu'aNri'ctaN ttai'tHe, ai'. That one isn't ideal, as there seems to be an aside in the middle of the quote, just before the e'. 402:2-3 Nu'daNhaNga', tti' d^u'ba ppe'raNba Edi' tHE, e' ura' maNgriN'i-ga, a'-biama' Ca'rewa'rE akHa'. I think the grammar of this one is clear, although it's for a whole quotable clause instead of a single noun phrase. Are these good enough, or should I look for more? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jack_Rushing at sil.org Sat Mar 17 09:00:49 2007 From: Jack_Rushing at sil.org (Jack_Rushing at sil.org) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00:49 -0500 Subject: Jack Rushing is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 03/16/2007 and will not return until 03/20/2007. I will respond to your message when I return.