From linguista at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 00:35:06 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:35:06 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Lakhota language table: please forward to those you think might be interested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: FYI in case I'm not the only person on the list in Tucson ... Han mitakuyepi, If you are getting this email, someone thought you (or someone you know) might be interested in participating in a 'Lakhota table' next semester (basically hanging out and learning/speaking Lakhotiyapi). I will be there for one hour once a week, and any of you are welcome to come when and for as long as you are able to stay (I know we are all busy!). Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested! I am learning, so unless you are (or invite) a fluent speaker it will be a bunch of learners helping each other learn - which can still be really helpful and fun. I will bring the New Lakhota Dictionary each time, which I have found to be an exceptionally valuable resource. In order to decide the best time, I have set up a 'doodle.' If you would like to come to the Lakhota table (at least once in a while), please participate in the doodle by following the link and clicking on times that would be 'ok' for you. http://www.doodle.com/t4e576i9t3gddf72 Please leave suggestions for meeting places (I am thinking coffee shop) in the "comments" section of the doodle, or email me at jfnelson at email.arizona.edu Also, if you think you might participate and want to know when it will be, please let me know so I can add you to a group email list. Of course I can also take you off if you would like in the future. The Lakota Language Forum is also a great resource if you are interested: http://lakotadictionary.org/phpBB3/index.php?sid=88d791a9b77e2e68deda57323184a4b9 Toksha akhe! Jessica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 00:50:48 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:50:48 -0700 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human Message-ID: I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xubái égaⁿ égithaⁿi ki wébahaⁿ-hnáⁿi he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 01:52:04 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:52:04 -0700 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Message-ID: Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmcbride at kawnation.com Tue Dec 8 14:36:51 2009 From: jmcbride at kawnation.com (Justin McBride) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:36:51 -0600 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Message-ID: Bryan, How about this one from Ks? gayó s^óⁿmikkáse z^íNga oz^óNge khe ophá abá skaN then wolf little road the he.was.following.it evid It's sentence 2 from JOD's "Raccoon and the Wolf," as told by one of his primary informants PpaháNle-Gáxli. Of course it's just the first example I've run across, but I have the impression that it's far from being the only one. Good luck, -Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: Bryan James Gordon To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:52 PM Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Dec 8 15:20:22 2009 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:20:22 -0600 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm still of the "why can't it be both" persuasion. This is a really nice example of wa as argument. But that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS an argument; I'd be perfectly happy with it being sometimes an argument, sometimes a valence reducer, and sometimes ambiguous. Catherine >>> Bryan James Gordon 12/7/2009 6:50 PM >>> I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xubái égaⁿ égithaⁿi ki wébahaⁿ-hnáⁿi he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 17:24:01 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:24:01 -0700 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists In-Reply-To: <97BDA7812F3044B6954FB7CAC69352CB@LANGDIRECTOR> Message-ID: Yes, you're right Justin. O&P have examples like that, too. I wonder if a better way to word my question would have been "inspecific bare arguments". 2009/12/8 Justin McBride > Bryan, > > How about this one from Ks? > > gayó s^óⁿmikkáse z^íNga oz^óNge khe ophá abá > skaN > then wolf little road the > he.was.following.it evid > > It's sentence 2 from JOD's "Raccoon and the Wolf," as told by one of his > primary informants PpaháNle-Gáxli. Of course it's just the first example > I've run across, but I have the impression that it's far from being the only > one. > > Good luck, > -Justin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bryan James Gordon > *To:* siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU > *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 7:52 PM > *Subject:* And another question for the Dhegihanists > > Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare > argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, > followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V > > Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's > generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. > > (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the > second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) > > - Bryan > > -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Dec 8 18:50:41 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:50:41 -0600 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human Message-ID: Hmmmmm, I somehow came away from John's paper at SACC believing that his point was that waa- *is* a valence reducer and that there is a conspicuous lack of convincing examples of the prefix used as a genuine argument. There have been many examples given on this list of instances in which waa- could be interpreted either way, but few to none in which it *had* to be interpreted as a plural argument. Maybe I'm just getting old and missed the bus on John's conclusion? It's also the case that sometimes the definition of what constitutes an "argument" of the verb can be theory-dependent, but I still thought I understood his point as being counter-argument, at least with regard to Hidatsa. The fact that so very many of the examples of this phenomenon can be interpreted either way, especially in English translation where the object pronoun analysis is often forced by English structure (or by bilingual speakers), makes the waa- construction a perfect candidate for diachronic reinterpretation however. So it doesn't surprise me that some speakers would begin using waa- as a plural obj. pronoun. This fits well with Catherine's analysis, and I expect she's right. So, John, did I nod off at a critical point in your paper?? Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU on behalf of Catherine Rudin Sent: Tue 12/8/2009 9:20 AM To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: wa- as indefinite-plural-human I'm still of the "why can't it be both" persuasion. This is a really nice example of wa as argument. But that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS an argument; I'd be perfectly happy with it being sometimes an argument, sometimes a valence reducer, and sometimes ambiguous. Catherine >>> Bryan James Gordon 12/7/2009 6:50 PM >>> I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xubái éga? égitha?i ki wébaha?-hná?i he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan From vstabler at esu1.org Wed Dec 9 03:41:21 2009 From: vstabler at esu1.org (vstabler at esu1.org) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:41:21 -0600 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bryan, when you are here in Macy, you can elicit from fluen Elders that could answer your questions. V > Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences > with a bare > argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined > argument,followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V > > Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if > bare N's > generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. > > (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the > second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son > the knew) > > - Bryan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Dec 10 00:07:53 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:07:53 -0600 Subject: FW: Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages (OWNAL2010) Message-ID: From: Brad Montgomery-Anderson [mailto:montgomb at nsuok.edu] Subject: Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages (OWNAL2010) Please Distribute widely ... and sorry for cross listings! *OWNAL: Saturday and Sunday, April 17-18, 2010, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK* The Center for Tribal Studies at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK, announces its 3rd annual Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages. OWNAL focuses on descriptive studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. This weekend workshop takes place at the end of the 38th Annual Symposium on the American Indian (April 14-17, 2010). After the Saturday workshop, participants may attend the Saturday Powwow that brings together well-known fancy dancers and local Oklahoma tribes. The deadline for abstracts is January 30. Talks are 20 minutes in length, followed by 10 minutes for questions. Dr. Colleen Fitzgerald will deliver a keynote address on Saturday. Dr. Fitzgerald is a former president of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest (LASSO)and the current chair of the Linguistics Department at the University of Texas-Arlington. Abstracts should be between 300-500 words and may be submitted by email. Contact details, institutional affiliation, and title (professor, student, or independent scholar) must be included. The program committee will announce the presentation schedule no later than February 20. Abstracts and questions may be submitted to Brad Montgomery-Anderson (montgomb at nsuok.edu). Registration: $40, $20 for students. (This fee is primarily a fundraiser for the symposium; it also pays for refreshments and a catered lunch. Make checks payable to NSU with 'Center for Tribal Studies-OWNAL' in the memo). An OWNAL poster is included as an attachment. Registration should be sent to: Northeastern State University Center for Tribal Studies-OWNAL 600 N. Grand Ave. Tahlequah, OK 74464 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OWNAL_Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 497814 bytes Desc: OWNAL_Flyer.pdf URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 11 18:38:42 2009 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:38:42 -0800 Subject: Siouan positional verbs Message-ID: Hello everyone: I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.)  (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to Siouan.)  In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes.  Some of these are obvious while others are not.  What I'm really curious about is their use in natural landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc.  I find it interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e dhe-khe).  Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP.  In BI a forest also 'sits'.  I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' (river/field/lake?).  While it seems intuitive to think of a river as flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or small enough to see its limits.  (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?).  As for the lake 'sitting' in BI vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a cultural/linguistic area.  Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts.  In BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache).  A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context these are used. I hope this makes sense!  Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 20:43:00 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:43:00 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <200235.31704.qm@web53803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river recedes. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Hello everyone: > > I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) > on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of > you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary > considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll > be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to > Siouan.) > > In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other > Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', > horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious > while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural > landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it > interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' > (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e > dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), > although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. > I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be > one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' > (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' > (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as > flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can > usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or > small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, > rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI > vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or > culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a > cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) > of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a > smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. > > The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In BI, > an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache). A > hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any > given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context > these are used. > > I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? > > Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 21:01:25 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:01:25 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <200235.31704.qm@web53803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The lake seems problematic. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Hello everyone: > > I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) > on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of > you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary > considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll > be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to > Siouan.) > > In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other > Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', > horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious > while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural > landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it > interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' > (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e > dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), > although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. > I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be > one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' > (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' > (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as > flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can > usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or > small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, > rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI > vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or > culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a > cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) > of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a > smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. > > The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In BI, > an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache). A > hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any > given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context > these are used. > > I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? > > Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 12 21:51:53 2009 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:51:53 -0800 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912121243i70cc1acdnd862da186f7e6abe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying.  Can you elaborate? As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy:  "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or Muskogean, would make sense. Dave --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus wrote: From: Dan Folkus Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river recedes. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: Hello everyone: I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.)  (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to Siouan.)  In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes.  Some of these are obvious while others are not.  What I'm really curious about is their use in natural landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc.  I find it interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e dhe-khe).  Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP.  In BI a forest also 'sits'.  I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' (river/field/lake?).  While it seems intuitive to think of a river as flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or small enough to see its limits.  (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?).  As for the lake 'sitting' in BI vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a cultural/linguistic area.  Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts.  In BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache).  A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context these are used. I hope this makes sense!  Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 01:05:07 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:05:07 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <863650.86183.qm@web53805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my depth. I'll just listen then... On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you > elaborate? > > As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I > received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE > Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: > > "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece of > land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." > > While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, > we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from > the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or > Muskogean, would make sense. > > Dave > > --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: > > > From: Dan Folkus > Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs > To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU > Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM > > > This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies > across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a > river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river > recedes. > > On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > > wrote: >> >> Hello everyone: >> >> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) >> on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of >> you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary >> considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll >> be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to >> Siouan.) >> >> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >> >> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >> what context these are used. >> >> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? >> >> Dave >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 01:15:41 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:15:41 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912131705m5e6de1bds8d5186d8fe84973b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Oh. But one more thing... Wittgenstein held that meaning is all tied up in what people actually DO with the words. So, for example, if the terms made a difference in how the speaker went about, say, searching for the river, or the lake, then the meaning is different. Otherwise, he wouldn't say it mattered much, I'm guessing. But now I truly shall try really hard to be quiet now... On 12/13/09, Dan Folkus wrote: > > Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific > ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. > I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. > Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and > 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my > depth. I'll just listen then... > > On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: >> >> Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you >> elaborate? >> >> As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I >> received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE >> Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: >> >> "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece >> of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." >> >> While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, >> we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from >> the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or >> Muskogean, would make sense. >> >> Dave >> >> --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: >> >> >> From: Dan Folkus >> Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs >> To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU >> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM >> >> >> This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies >> across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a >> river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river >> recedes. >> >> On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone: >>> >>> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a >>> dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd >>> see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan >>> languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) >>> (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from >>> Algonquian back to Siouan.) >>> >>> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >>> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >>> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >>> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >>> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >>> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >>> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >>> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >>> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >>> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >>> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >>> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >>> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >>> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >>> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >>> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >>> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >>> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >>> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >>> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >>> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >>> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >>> >>> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >>> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >>> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >>> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >>> what context these are used. >>> >>> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples >>> anyone? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 13:14:42 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:14:42 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912131715n7a3af926l5557267bc355fec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It does make some sense to not expect the river to be as clearly demarcated as a lake. We have ox bows forming and BECOMING lakes that 'sit there' while the river that had laid by has moved to 'lie' somewhere else... So, if that sort of geological hydrological interface is the source of the different word usages, then it is NOT a trivial point. And good luck to you in your study of that differentiation, which I had found interesting. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Dan Folkus wrote: > Oh. But one more thing... Wittgenstein held that meaning is all tied up in > what people actually DO with the words. So, for example, if the terms made a > difference in how the speaker went about, say, searching for the river, or > the lake, then the meaning is different. Otherwise, he wouldn't say it > mattered much, I'm guessing. But now I truly shall try really hard to be > quiet now... > > On 12/13/09, Dan Folkus wrote: >> >> Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific >> ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. >> I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. >> Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and >> 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my >> depth. I'll just listen then... >> >> On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you >>> elaborate? >>> >>> As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I >>> received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE >>> Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: >>> >>> "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece >>> of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." >>> >>> While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, >>> we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from >>> the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or >>> Muskogean, would make sense. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Dan Folkus >>> Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs >>> To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU >>> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM >>> >>> >>> This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies >>> across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a >>> river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river >>> recedes. >>> >>> On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello everyone: >>>> >>>> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a >>>> dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd >>>> see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan >>>> languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) >>>> (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from >>>> Algonquian back to Siouan.) >>>> >>>> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >>>> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >>>> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >>>> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >>>> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >>>> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >>>> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >>>> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >>>> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >>>> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >>>> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >>>> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >>>> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >>>> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >>>> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >>>> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >>>> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >>>> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >>>> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >>>> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >>>> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >>>> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >>>> >>>> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >>>> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >>>> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >>>> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >>>> what context these are used. >>>> >>>> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples >>>> anyone? >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 20:52:05 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:52:05 -0700 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912140514x23c2dc4dk3c153ae117de580@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This discussion has me considering something along the lines of object permanence. What I have been told about what David is calling the "sitting" inanimate determiner in Omaha and Ponca is that it marks "round" things or "symmetrical" things. And the sense that is coming out of this discussion is that it has something to do with boundedness and whether objects are really just that - objects in a permanent sense that have a place in a permanent sense. Symmetry and "roundness" are very strongly associated with this idea of object permanence in cognitive psychology - they are primary means through which humans recognise objects. Note that in continental Germanic languages "sit", "stand" and "lie" are all associated with permanent objects in temporary locations, so "sit" would not be the same sort of thing. (If the Italian David mentions was from the north of Italy he may have been influenced by that semantic world too.) But we know the story can't be completely correct. Alongside "hill the-symmetrical" we also get "hill the-round". Same for lakes. Are lakes and hills permanent or not? Bounded? I suspect that Dan and Wittgenstein may be right: it all depends on your perspective and how you're interacting with them (or how your imaginary character is interacting with them). - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johannes.helmbrecht at sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de Tue Dec 22 09:41:03 2009 From: johannes.helmbrecht at sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:41:03 +0100 Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, unfortunately, I was so loaded with all kinds of obligations the last two/three months that I did not manage to mail around a brief summary of the decisions of the Round Table of our last conference in Lioncoln,NE and a reminder to all participants of the project "Studies in comparative Siouan linguistics". With regard to the planned first volume, the decisions we came up with in Lincoln were the following: August, 20 - a first version of the contribution is due, October, 20 - comments, additional data etc. from the participants (including the editors) in the CSG project should be sent to the authors, January, 20 - all authors should be able to deliver a kind of final version March, 20 - editorial comments will be sent out to the authors, May, 20 - final manuscripts As everyone sees, we are far away to meet any of these selfimposed deadlines. Up to now, I received only ONE manuscript, the one by Catherine. My own contribution needs some revisions and additional data, but is not far from being a real manuscript. I would like to encourage the other participants of our workshop and of our project to submit their manuscripts! AND I promis Catherine some comments soon. As far as I remember, we also planned to organize another small workshop on Comparative Siouan Grammar during the upcoming conference in Chicago in June next year. Since Germans always want to organize things way in advance - and I am no exception to this - I would like to ask all Siouanists for paper proposals for this occasion. I myself would like to present a paper on possession in Siouan. Please send proposals to me and John Boyle who will organize our next meeting. I wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody Best Johannes From rankin at ku.edu Fri Dec 25 16:49:39 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:49:39 -0600 Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Message-ID: I hope all of you are having a good holiday. Here in Kansas we have blizzard conditions and a very White Christmas. The project to analyze and compare all of the post-verbal affixes and enclitics proved to be more than a one-conference project, as those of you who were at Lincoln no doubt observed. For that reason, I will be working toward completing this work for this Summer's meeting in Chicago. There is still much to be done just on this paper alone. And a note for Johannes: The "all kinds of obligations" do not end when one retires. I foolishly thought it would be a period of relaxation and freedom from everything we do as professors. Ha! Not so. I keep telling my wife that THIS year I'm going to retire again. It probably won't happen. . . . All the best to everyone in the New Year. Prosit Neu Jahr! Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU on behalf of Johannes Helmbrecht Sent: Tue 12/22/2009 3:41 AM To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Dear Siouanists, unfortunately, I was so loaded with all kinds of obligations the last two/three months that I did not manage to mail around a brief summary of the decisions of the Round Table of our last conference in Lioncoln,NE and a reminder to all participants of the project "Studies in comparative Siouan linguistics". With regard to the planned first volume, the decisions we came up with in Lincoln were the following: August, 20 - a first version of the contribution is due, October, 20 - comments, additional data etc. from the participants (including the editors) in the CSG project should be sent to the authors, January, 20 - all authors should be able to deliver a kind of final version March, 20 - editorial comments will be sent out to the authors, May, 20 - final manuscripts As everyone sees, we are far away to meet any of these selfimposed deadlines. Up to now, I received only ONE manuscript, the one by Catherine. My own contribution needs some revisions and additional data, but is not far from being a real manuscript. I would like to encourage the other participants of our workshop and of our project to submit their manuscripts! AND I promis Catherine some comments soon. As far as I remember, we also planned to organize another small workshop on Comparative Siouan Grammar during the upcoming conference in Chicago in June next year. Since Germans always want to organize things way in advance - and I am no exception to this - I would like to ask all Siouanists for paper proposals for this occasion. I myself would like to present a paper on possession in Siouan. Please send proposals to me and John Boyle who will organize our next meeting. I wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody Best Johannes From linguista at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 00:35:06 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:35:06 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Lakhota language table: please forward to those you think might be interested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: FYI in case I'm not the only person on the list in Tucson ... Han mitakuyepi, If you are getting this email, someone thought you (or someone you know) might be interested in participating in a 'Lakhota table' next semester (basically hanging out and learning/speaking Lakhotiyapi). I will be there for one hour once a week, and any of you are welcome to come when and for as long as you are able to stay (I know we are all busy!). Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested! I am learning, so unless you are (or invite) a fluent speaker it will be a bunch of learners helping each other learn - which can still be really helpful and fun. I will bring the New Lakhota Dictionary each time, which I have found to be an exceptionally valuable resource. In order to decide the best time, I have set up a 'doodle.' If you would like to come to the Lakhota table (at least once in a while), please participate in the doodle by following the link and clicking on times that would be 'ok' for you. http://www.doodle.com/t4e576i9t3gddf72 Please leave suggestions for meeting places (I am thinking coffee shop) in the "comments" section of the doodle, or email me at jfnelson at email.arizona.edu Also, if you think you might participate and want to know when it will be, please let me know so I can add you to a group email list. Of course I can also take you off if you would like in the future. The Lakota Language Forum is also a great resource if you are interested: http://lakotadictionary.org/phpBB3/index.php?sid=88d791a9b77e2e68deda57323184a4b9 Toksha akhe! Jessica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 00:50:48 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:50:48 -0700 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human Message-ID: I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xub?i ?ga? ?githa?i ki w?baha?-hn??i he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 01:52:04 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:52:04 -0700 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Message-ID: Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmcbride at kawnation.com Tue Dec 8 14:36:51 2009 From: jmcbride at kawnation.com (Justin McBride) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:36:51 -0600 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Message-ID: Bryan, How about this one from Ks? gay? s^??mikk?se z^?Nga oz^?Nge khe oph? ab? skaN then wolf little road the he.was.following.it evid It's sentence 2 from JOD's "Raccoon and the Wolf," as told by one of his primary informants Ppah?Nle-G?xli. Of course it's just the first example I've run across, but I have the impression that it's far from being the only one. Good luck, -Justin ----- Original Message ----- From: Bryan James Gordon To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:52 PM Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From CaRudin1 at wsc.edu Tue Dec 8 15:20:22 2009 From: CaRudin1 at wsc.edu (Catherine Rudin) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:20:22 -0600 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm still of the "why can't it be both" persuasion. This is a really nice example of wa as argument. But that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS an argument; I'd be perfectly happy with it being sometimes an argument, sometimes a valence reducer, and sometimes ambiguous. Catherine >>> Bryan James Gordon 12/7/2009 6:50 PM >>> I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xub?i ?ga? ?githa?i ki w?baha?-hn??i he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan From linguista at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 17:24:01 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:24:01 -0700 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists In-Reply-To: <97BDA7812F3044B6954FB7CAC69352CB@LANGDIRECTOR> Message-ID: Yes, you're right Justin. O&P have examples like that, too. I wonder if a better way to word my question would have been "inspecific bare arguments". 2009/12/8 Justin McBride > Bryan, > > How about this one from Ks? > > gay? s^??mikk?se z^?Nga oz^?Nge khe oph? ab? > skaN > then wolf little road the > he.was.following.it evid > > It's sentence 2 from JOD's "Raccoon and the Wolf," as told by one of his > primary informants Ppah?Nle-G?xli. Of course it's just the first example > I've run across, but I have the impression that it's far from being the only > one. > > Good luck, > -Justin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bryan James Gordon > *To:* siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU > *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 7:52 PM > *Subject:* And another question for the Dhegihanists > > Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences with a bare > argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined argument, > followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V > > Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if bare N's > generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. > > (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the > second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son the knew) > > - Bryan > > -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Tue Dec 8 18:50:41 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:50:41 -0600 Subject: wa- as indefinite-plural-human Message-ID: Hmmmmm, I somehow came away from John's paper at SACC believing that his point was that waa- *is* a valence reducer and that there is a conspicuous lack of convincing examples of the prefix used as a genuine argument. There have been many examples given on this list of instances in which waa- could be interpreted either way, but few to none in which it *had* to be interpreted as a plural argument. Maybe I'm just getting old and missed the bus on John's conclusion? It's also the case that sometimes the definition of what constitutes an "argument" of the verb can be theory-dependent, but I still thought I understood his point as being counter-argument, at least with regard to Hidatsa. The fact that so very many of the examples of this phenomenon can be interpreted either way, especially in English translation where the object pronoun analysis is often forced by English structure (or by bilingual speakers), makes the waa- construction a perfect candidate for diachronic reinterpretation however. So it doesn't surprise me that some speakers would begin using waa- as a plural obj. pronoun. This fits well with Catherine's analysis, and I expect she's right. So, John, did I nod off at a critical point in your paper?? Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU on behalf of Catherine Rudin Sent: Tue 12/8/2009 9:20 AM To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: wa- as indefinite-plural-human I'm still of the "why can't it be both" persuasion. This is a really nice example of wa as argument. But that doesn't mean it's ALWAYS an argument; I'd be perfectly happy with it being sometimes an argument, sometimes a valence reducer, and sometimes ambiguous. Catherine >>> Bryan James Gordon 12/7/2009 6:50 PM >>> I've got something I just found in Dorsey which may help back up des Herrn Professor Doktor Boyle claim that those pesky wa- prefixes are not valence reducers but actual arguments. Look at the agreement here: (Dorsey 1890: 120.4-5) Xub?i ?ga? ?githa?i ki w?baha?-hn??i he. sacred.3PROX 3.SIM say.to.PL when WA.know-FREQ.3PROX DECL.F "Since he is sacred, when they say it to [one another], he always knows it of them." It's important to realise that in O&P (other languages too?) "know" is a subject-object-raising verb, and obligatorily takes as its object the subject of the subordinate clause. (This is as far as I'm aware, I don't know if that's universally true of course.) The subject of the subordinate clause here is "indefinite-plural-human", just like the non-referring 3rd-person-plural stuff you get in Romance languages. And it just so happens that there is an object morpheme for that sort of argument: wa! Oh well, the valence-reducer idea was nice though, wasn't it? - Bryan From vstabler at esu1.org Wed Dec 9 03:41:21 2009 From: vstabler at esu1.org (vstabler at esu1.org) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:41:21 -0600 Subject: And another question for the Dhegihanists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bryan, when you are here in Macy, you can elicit from fluen Elders that could answer your questions. V > Does anyone know whether any Dhegiha languages allow sentences > with a bare > argument (either subject or object), followed by a determined > argument,followed by the verb? i.e., N - N - D - V > > Can't find any or remember any for the life of me. I wonder if > bare N's > generally have to stay closer to the verb than determined ones do. > > (I'm not counting examples where the first one is the possessor of the > second, as these have a different structure, e.g. Rabbit his.son > the knew) > > - Bryan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Thu Dec 10 00:07:53 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:07:53 -0600 Subject: FW: Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages (OWNAL2010) Message-ID: From: Brad Montgomery-Anderson [mailto:montgomb at nsuok.edu] Subject: Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages (OWNAL2010) Please Distribute widely ... and sorry for cross listings! *OWNAL: Saturday and Sunday, April 17-18, 2010, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK* The Center for Tribal Studies at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK, announces its 3rd annual Oklahoma Workshop on Native American Languages. OWNAL focuses on descriptive studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. This weekend workshop takes place at the end of the 38th Annual Symposium on the American Indian (April 14-17, 2010). After the Saturday workshop, participants may attend the Saturday Powwow that brings together well-known fancy dancers and local Oklahoma tribes. The deadline for abstracts is January 30. Talks are 20 minutes in length, followed by 10 minutes for questions. Dr. Colleen Fitzgerald will deliver a keynote address on Saturday. Dr. Fitzgerald is a former president of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest (LASSO)and the current chair of the Linguistics Department at the University of Texas-Arlington. Abstracts should be between 300-500 words and may be submitted by email. Contact details, institutional affiliation, and title (professor, student, or independent scholar) must be included. The program committee will announce the presentation schedule no later than February 20. Abstracts and questions may be submitted to Brad Montgomery-Anderson (montgomb at nsuok.edu). Registration: $40, $20 for students. (This fee is primarily a fundraiser for the symposium; it also pays for refreshments and a catered lunch. Make checks payable to NSU with 'Center for Tribal Studies-OWNAL' in the memo). An OWNAL poster is included as an attachment. Registration should be sent to: Northeastern State University Center for Tribal Studies-OWNAL 600 N. Grand Ave. Tahlequah, OK 74464 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OWNAL_Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 497814 bytes Desc: OWNAL_Flyer.pdf URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 11 18:38:42 2009 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:38:42 -0800 Subject: Siouan positional verbs Message-ID: Hello everyone: I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.)? (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to Siouan.)? In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes.? Some of these are obvious while others are not.? What I'm really curious about is their use in natural landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc.? I find it interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e dhe-khe).? Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP.? In BI a forest also 'sits'.? I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' (river/field/lake?).? While it seems intuitive to think of a river as flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or small enough to see its limits.? (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?).? As for the lake 'sitting' in BI vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a cultural/linguistic area.? Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts.? In BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache).? A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context these are used. I hope this makes sense!? Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 20:43:00 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:43:00 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <200235.31704.qm@web53803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river recedes. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Hello everyone: > > I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) > on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of > you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary > considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll > be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to > Siouan.) > > In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other > Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', > horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious > while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural > landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it > interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' > (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e > dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), > although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. > I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be > one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' > (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' > (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as > flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can > usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or > small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, > rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI > vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or > culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a > cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) > of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a > smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. > > The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In BI, > an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache). A > hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any > given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context > these are used. > > I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? > > Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 21:01:25 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:01:25 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <200235.31704.qm@web53803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The lake seems problematic. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Hello everyone: > > I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) > on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of > you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary > considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll > be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to > Siouan.) > > In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other > Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', > horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious > while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural > landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it > interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' > (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e > dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), > although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. > I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be > one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' > (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' > (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as > flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can > usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or > small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, > rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI > vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or > culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a > cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) > of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a > smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. > > The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In BI, > an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache). A > hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any > given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context > these are used. > > I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? > > Dave > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 12 21:51:53 2009 From: dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com (David Kaufman) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:51:53 -0800 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912121243i70cc1acdnd862da186f7e6abe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying.? Can you elaborate? As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy:? "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or Muskogean, would make sense. Dave --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus wrote: From: Dan Folkus Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river recedes. On 12/11/09, David Kaufman wrote: Hello everyone: I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.)? (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to Siouan.)? In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes.? Some of these are obvious while others are not.? What I'm really curious about is their use in natural landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc.? I find it interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e dhe-khe).? Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP.? In BI a forest also 'sits'.? I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' (river/field/lake?).? While it seems intuitive to think of a river as flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or small enough to see its limits.? (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?).? As for the lake 'sitting' in BI vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a cultural/linguistic area.? Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts.? In BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a headache).? A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in what context these are used. I hope this makes sense!? Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 01:05:07 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:05:07 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <863650.86183.qm@web53805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my depth. I'll just listen then... On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: > > Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you > elaborate? > > As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I > received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE > Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: > > "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece of > land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." > > While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, > we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from > the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or > Muskogean, would make sense. > > Dave > > --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: > > > From: Dan Folkus > Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs > To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU > Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM > > > This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies > across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a > river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river > recedes. > > On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > > wrote: >> >> Hello everyone: >> >> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation) >> on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if any of >> you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan languages vary >> considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll >> be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from Algonquian back to >> Siouan.) >> >> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >> >> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >> what context these are used. >> >> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone? >> >> Dave >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 01:15:41 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:15:41 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912131705m5e6de1bds8d5186d8fe84973b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Oh. But one more thing... Wittgenstein held that meaning is all tied up in what people actually DO with the words. So, for example, if the terms made a difference in how the speaker went about, say, searching for the river, or the lake, then the meaning is different. Otherwise, he wouldn't say it mattered much, I'm guessing. But now I truly shall try really hard to be quiet now... On 12/13/09, Dan Folkus wrote: > > Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific > ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. > I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. > Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and > 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my > depth. I'll just listen then... > > On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: >> >> Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you >> elaborate? >> >> As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I >> received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE >> Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: >> >> "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece >> of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." >> >> While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, >> we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from >> the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or >> Muskogean, would make sense. >> >> Dave >> >> --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: >> >> >> From: Dan Folkus >> Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs >> To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU >> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM >> >> >> This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies >> across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a >> river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river >> recedes. >> >> On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone: >>> >>> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a >>> dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd >>> see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan >>> languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) >>> (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from >>> Algonquian back to Siouan.) >>> >>> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >>> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >>> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >>> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >>> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >>> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >>> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >>> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >>> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >>> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >>> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >>> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >>> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >>> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >>> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >>> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >>> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >>> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >>> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >>> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >>> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >>> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >>> >>> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >>> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >>> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >>> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >>> what context these are used. >>> >>> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples >>> anyone? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.folkus at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 13:14:42 2009 From: dan.folkus at gmail.com (Dan Folkus) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:14:42 -0500 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912131715n7a3af926l5557267bc355fec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It does make some sense to not expect the river to be as clearly demarcated as a lake. We have ox bows forming and BECOMING lakes that 'sit there' while the river that had laid by has moved to 'lie' somewhere else... So, if that sort of geological hydrological interface is the source of the different word usages, then it is NOT a trivial point. And good luck to you in your study of that differentiation, which I had found interesting. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Dan Folkus wrote: > Oh. But one more thing... Wittgenstein held that meaning is all tied up in > what people actually DO with the words. So, for example, if the terms made a > difference in how the speaker went about, say, searching for the river, or > the lake, then the meaning is different. Otherwise, he wouldn't say it > mattered much, I'm guessing. But now I truly shall try really hard to be > quiet now... > > On 12/13/09, Dan Folkus wrote: >> >> Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific >> ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized take. >> I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language* philosophy. >> Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the terms 'sit' and >> 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to you. I must be out of my >> depth. I'll just listen then... >> >> On 12/12/09, David Kaufman wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you >>> elaborate? >>> >>> As a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I >>> received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in SE >>> Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: >>> >>> "My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece >>> of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie." >>> >>> While this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, >>> we suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from >>> the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or >>> Muskogean, would make sense. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> --- On *Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus * wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Dan Folkus >>> Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs >>> To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU >>> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM >>> >>> >>> This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies >>> across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But a >>> river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the river >>> recedes. >>> >>> On 12/11/09, David Kaufman > >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello everyone: >>>> >>>> I'm writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a >>>> dissertation) on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd >>>> see if any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan >>>> languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb classifiers.) >>>> (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've switched my focus from >>>> Algonquian back to Siouan.) >>>> >>>> In Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other >>>> Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand', >>>> horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these are obvious >>>> while others are not. What I'm really curious about is their use in natural >>>> landscape objects, such as lake, river, land, field, etc. I find it >>>> interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in general) 'sits' >>>> (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field 'lies/reclines' (u'e >>>> dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to 'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), >>>> although a lake 'sits' in BI but 'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. >>>> I'm wondering then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be >>>> one of boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible boundaries 'sit' >>>> (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' >>>> (river/field/lake?). While it seems intuitive to think of a river as >>>> flat/horizontal (which it is!), we can also see it as being bounded (you can >>>> usually see both banks of a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or >>>> small enough to see its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, >>>> rivers, as 'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI >>>> vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or >>>> culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a >>>> cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake (the Gulf?) >>>> of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while Omahas saw a >>>> smaller lake with well-defined boundaries. >>>> >>>> The other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts. In >>>> BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a >>>> headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its actual >>>> position at any given time, but I don't know about other body parts and in >>>> what context these are used. >>>> >>>> I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples >>>> anyone? >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguista at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 20:52:05 2009 From: linguista at gmail.com (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:52:05 -0700 Subject: Siouan positional verbs In-Reply-To: <4eb5a3d40912140514x23c2dc4dk3c153ae117de580@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This discussion has me considering something along the lines of object permanence. What I have been told about what David is calling the "sitting" inanimate determiner in Omaha and Ponca is that it marks "round" things or "symmetrical" things. And the sense that is coming out of this discussion is that it has something to do with boundedness and whether objects are really just that - objects in a permanent sense that have a place in a permanent sense. Symmetry and "roundness" are very strongly associated with this idea of object permanence in cognitive psychology - they are primary means through which humans recognise objects. Note that in continental Germanic languages "sit", "stand" and "lie" are all associated with permanent objects in temporary locations, so "sit" would not be the same sort of thing. (If the Italian David mentions was from the north of Italy he may have been influenced by that semantic world too.) But we know the story can't be completely correct. Alongside "hill the-symmetrical" we also get "hill the-round". Same for lakes. Are lakes and hills permanent or not? Bounded? I suspect that Dan and Wittgenstein may be right: it all depends on your perspective and how you're interacting with them (or how your imaginary character is interacting with them). - Bryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johannes.helmbrecht at sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de Tue Dec 22 09:41:03 2009 From: johannes.helmbrecht at sprachlit.uni-regensburg.de (Johannes Helmbrecht) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:41:03 +0100 Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Message-ID: Dear Siouanists, unfortunately, I was so loaded with all kinds of obligations the last two/three months that I did not manage to mail around a brief summary of the decisions of the Round Table of our last conference in Lioncoln,NE and a reminder to all participants of the project "Studies in comparative Siouan linguistics". With regard to the planned first volume, the decisions we came up with in Lincoln were the following: August, 20 - a first version of the contribution is due, October, 20 - comments, additional data etc. from the participants (including the editors) in the CSG project should be sent to the authors, January, 20 - all authors should be able to deliver a kind of final version March, 20 - editorial comments will be sent out to the authors, May, 20 - final manuscripts As everyone sees, we are far away to meet any of these selfimposed deadlines. Up to now, I received only ONE manuscript, the one by Catherine. My own contribution needs some revisions and additional data, but is not far from being a real manuscript. I would like to encourage the other participants of our workshop and of our project to submit their manuscripts! AND I promis Catherine some comments soon. As far as I remember, we also planned to organize another small workshop on Comparative Siouan Grammar during the upcoming conference in Chicago in June next year. Since Germans always want to organize things way in advance - and I am no exception to this - I would like to ask all Siouanists for paper proposals for this occasion. I myself would like to present a paper on possession in Siouan. Please send proposals to me and John Boyle who will organize our next meeting. I wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody Best Johannes From rankin at ku.edu Fri Dec 25 16:49:39 2009 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:49:39 -0600 Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Message-ID: I hope all of you are having a good holiday. Here in Kansas we have blizzard conditions and a very White Christmas. The project to analyze and compare all of the post-verbal affixes and enclitics proved to be more than a one-conference project, as those of you who were at Lincoln no doubt observed. For that reason, I will be working toward completing this work for this Summer's meeting in Chicago. There is still much to be done just on this paper alone. And a note for Johannes: The "all kinds of obligations" do not end when one retires. I foolishly thought it would be a period of relaxation and freedom from everything we do as professors. Ha! Not so. I keep telling my wife that THIS year I'm going to retire again. It probably won't happen. . . . All the best to everyone in the New Year. Prosit Neu Jahr! Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU on behalf of Johannes Helmbrecht Sent: Tue 12/22/2009 3:41 AM To: siouan at lists.Colorado.EDU Subject: "Studies on Comparative Siouan Linguistics" Dear Siouanists, unfortunately, I was so loaded with all kinds of obligations the last two/three months that I did not manage to mail around a brief summary of the decisions of the Round Table of our last conference in Lioncoln,NE and a reminder to all participants of the project "Studies in comparative Siouan linguistics". With regard to the planned first volume, the decisions we came up with in Lincoln were the following: August, 20 - a first version of the contribution is due, October, 20 - comments, additional data etc. from the participants (including the editors) in the CSG project should be sent to the authors, January, 20 - all authors should be able to deliver a kind of final version March, 20 - editorial comments will be sent out to the authors, May, 20 - final manuscripts As everyone sees, we are far away to meet any of these selfimposed deadlines. Up to now, I received only ONE manuscript, the one by Catherine. My own contribution needs some revisions and additional data, but is not far from being a real manuscript. I would like to encourage the other participants of our workshop and of our project to submit their manuscripts! AND I promis Catherine some comments soon. As far as I remember, we also planned to organize another small workshop on Comparative Siouan Grammar during the upcoming conference in Chicago in June next year. Since Germans always want to organize things way in advance - and I am no exception to this - I would like to ask all Siouanists for paper proposals for this occasion. I myself would like to present a paper on possession in Siouan. Please send proposals to me and John Boyle who will organize our next meeting. I wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody Best Johannes