From geocultural at YAHOO.COM Thu Sep 1 03:16:54 2011 From: geocultural at YAHOO.COM (Robert Myers) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:16:54 -0700 Subject: Fw: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: <1314712271.99736.YahooMailNeo@web110313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Glad to be a continued part of the Siouan listserv. Robert Myers Champaign, IL geocultural at yahoo.com --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: >From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland >Subject: list relocation notification >To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu >Date: Monday, August 29, 2011, 1:28 PM > > >Aloha all SiouanList users, > >At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. > >The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. > >The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. > >It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu > >I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. > >For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu > >I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. >Hello!  This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages.  Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on.  Thanks! >Can this person contact the new UNL list? > >If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > >I understand that the list archives still function as before. > >Give me your feedback, please. > >Mark >Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies >Native American Studies Program Liaison >University of Nebraska >Department of Anthropology >841 Oldfather Hall >Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > >http://omahalanguage.unl.edu >http://omahaponca.unl.edu >Phone 402-472-3455 >FAX: 402-472-9642 >----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- > >Mark J Awakuni-Swetland >Sent by: Siouan Linguistics >08/29/11 12:47 PM >Please respond to >Siouan Linguistics > To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu >cc >Subject testing > > > > >THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST > > >Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies >Native American Studies Program Liaison >University of Nebraska >Department of Anthropology >841 Oldfather Hall >Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > >http://omahalanguage.unl.edu >http://omahaponca.unl.edu >Phone 402-472-3455 >FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA Thu Sep 1 03:37:47 2011 From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA (voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:37:47 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235DCB29@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob & Bruce, Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand for reference, but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a final consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with the final consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec 'fire', etc. Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does Winnebago just drop some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference works handy will have to check it. As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly add extra consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone ever explained what the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might mean? Can they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding even vaguely consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? Exactly the same problem arises with Indo-European root extensions. It looks to me like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in flicker, flit, flash, flip, and flutter. Paul On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Bruce, > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will > return to this issue when I get back. > > Best, > > Bob > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for > that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in > certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being one I think. She > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these > stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed much and > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Thu Sep 1 13:27:23 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:27:23 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al Message-ID: Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you. I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan. The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan? I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic. I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings. I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier. The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense. He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> š> ȟ etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as sóta ’clear’, šóta ’smoky’, ȟóta ’grey’; sápa ’black’, šápa ’dirty’; zi ’yellow’,ži ’tawny’, ǧi ’brown’. I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean? Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions. It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels. The > > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable. Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words. I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that. I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go. I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 13:37:45 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (rankin at KU.EDU) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:37:45 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <4E5EFE0B.7080702@westman.wave.ca> Message-ID: Yes Winn. lost final short unaccented -e for the most part. Dakotan MAY have also, replacing it with -A. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Sender: Siouan Linguistics Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:37:47 To: Reply-To: Siouan Linguistics Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bob & Bruce, Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand for reference, but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a final consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with the final consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec 'fire', etc. Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does Winnebago just drop some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference works handy will have to check it. As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly add extra consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone ever explained what the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might mean? Can they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding even vaguely consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? Exactly the same problem arises with Indo-European root extensions. It looks to me like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in flicker, flit, flash, flip, and flutter. Paul On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Bruce, > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will > return to this issue when I get back. > > Best, > > Bob > >________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for > that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in > certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being one I think. She > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these > stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed much and > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Thu Sep 1 15:13:21 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:13:21 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <1314883643.95381.YahooMailClassic@web29502.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bruce wrote: > examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) > qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), > pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', > qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', > nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" > I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think > ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they > can't be attributed specific meanings now. Looking at these examples, I'm struck by their similarity to Siouan words with instrumental prefixes. Perhaps it is not the first element that is the original Semitic verb root, but the second. The first element would then be a standard classificatory prefix telling how the verb action took place, with the second element being the verb proper. Thus, *qaT- would be pretty much the same as Dakota ba-, Omaha ma-, Osage pa-, "by cutting", with *-T, *-a, *-S, *-af, *-am and *-d being the truncated remains of various particular verbs that might or might not be done by cutting. Similarly, *nab- would mean "emergently", with *-agh, *-a3, *-aT and *-at representing various other verb roots that might or might not involve coming out. Thanks, Bruce, for a very stimulating post! Rory shokooh Ingham Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 08:27 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you. I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan. The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan? I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic. I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings. I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier. The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense. He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> š> ȟ etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as sóta ’clear’, šóta ’smoky’, ȟóta ’grey’; sápa ’black’, šápa ’dirty’; zi ’yellow’,ži ’tawny’, ǧi ’brown’. I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean? Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions. It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels. The > > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable. Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words. I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that. I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go. I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From indrek.park at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 1 15:38:30 2011 From: indrek.park at GMAIL.COM (Indrek Park) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:30 -0400 Subject: list membership Message-ID: Verifying my subscription. Thanks! Indrek Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Thu Sep 1 15:55:31 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:55:31 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This just shows you how it is possible to take a completely different view of something if you come from a different language background.  Starting from Arabic, I would never have seen it that way, but of course it is not impossible that an earlier stage may have been as Rory suggests. Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, Rory M Larson wrote: From: Rory M Larson Subject: Re: Ablaut et al To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 16:13 Bruce wrote: > examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) > qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), > pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', > qasam 'divide, split'.  Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', > nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" > I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think > ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they > can't be attributed specific meanings now. Looking at these examples, I'm struck by their similarity to Siouan words with instrumental prefixes.  Perhaps it is not the first element that is the original Semitic verb root, but the second.  The first element would then be a standard classificatory prefix telling how the verb action took place, with the second element being the verb proper.  Thus, *qaT- would be pretty much the same as Dakota ba-, Omaha ma-, Osage pa-, "by cutting", with *-T, *-a, *-S, *-af, *-am and *-d being the truncated remains of various particular verbs that might or might not be done by cutting.  Similarly, *nab- would mean "emergently", with *-agh, *-a3, *-aT and *-at representing various other verb roots that might or might not involve coming out. Thanks, Bruce, for a very stimulating post! Rory shokooh Ingham Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 08:27 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you.  I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan.  The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan?  I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic.  I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings.  I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier.  The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense.  He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'.  Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> š> ȟ etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as sóta ’clear’, šóta ’smoky’, ȟóta ’grey’; sápa ’black’, šápa ’dirty’; zi ’yellow’,ži ’tawny’, ǧi ’brown’.   I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels?  Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course.  Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean?  Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions.  It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic.  There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels.  The > > rule seems to have been:  If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable.  Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae.  This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words.  I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that.   I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library.  One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, káǧa  'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'.  He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'.  The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go.  I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 1 18:00:19 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:00:19 -0500 Subject: today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aho WagaqthoN, I'm back on campus. See you in class today. Uthixide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 20:21:34 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:21:34 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235DCB29@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *ká:xe *aRú:te *xé:pe CR -ka:xi ó:ši xé:pi HI -ka:xe ó:te xé:pi MA -kaáx LA káγA lútA xépA CH gá:γe dú:je xé:we WI gá:x tú:č γé:p OP gá:γe ní:de xébe KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI atutí xépi OF atúti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 20:27:08 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:27:08 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E2075@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, the formatting of the three-column table in my previous email turned to crap, as usual, but you guys should be able to reconstruct it and get the items in the three proper columns. Sorry, email always seems to do this. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *ká:xe *aRú:te *xé:pe CR -ka:xi ó:ši xé:pi HI -ka:xe ó:te xé:pi MA -kaáx LA káγA lútA xépA CH gá:γe dú:je xé:we WI gá:x tú:č γé:p OP gá:γe ní:de xébe KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI atutí xépi OF atúti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 1 22:52:18 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:52:18 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E2075@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, With no irons in this particular fire, I'd like to play the Devil's advocate here. I don't really see that the choice between > a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: and > b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. is as stark your argument makes it to be. Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. I understand that in Korean, final stops have no release. In English, we have a slight release, but we don't classify the release as a separate vowel. Perhaps proto-Siouan had more of a release, which operated for any final consonant. In daughter languages, this release might be reinterpreted as a separate syllable or not. If it was interpreted as syllabic, the vowel would be something rather unmarked: most likely -e, possibly -i or -a, and definitely not rounded. If not, it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Maybe even in modern languages like Omaha, these final -e sounds are only somewhat more pronounced consonant releases than we English speakers are used to. Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 03:22 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *ká:xe *aRú:te *xé:pe CR -ka:xi ó:ši xé:pi HI -ka:xe ó:te xé:pi MA -kaáx LA káγA lútA xépA CH gá:γe dú:je xé:we WI gá:x tú:č γé:p OP gá:γe ní:de xébe KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI atutí xépi OF atúti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, káǧa 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as kaǧ- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Fri Sep 2 11:58:49 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:58:49 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E40AC@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Very enlightening Bob, Thanks Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > From: Rankin, Robert L > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 21:27 > Well, the formatting of the > three-column table in my previous email turned to crap, as > usual, but you guys should be able to reconstruct it and get > the items in the three proper columns. Sorry, email > always seems to do this. > > Bob > > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:21 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > > Bruce, Paul, et al. > > I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had > consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same > stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each > instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages > (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that > is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and > Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To > me, this means that EITHER: > > a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it > was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: > > b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of > the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these > stems INDEPENDENTLY. > > Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping > of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is > very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in > that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I > hope formatting holds here): > > make > marks ripe > shallow > PS *ká:xe > *aRú:te *xé:pe > CR -ka:xi > ó:ši > xé:pi > HI -ka:xe > ó:te > xé:pi > MA -kaáx > LA káγA > lútA > xépA > CH gá:γe > dú:je > xé:we > WI gá:x > tú:č > γé:p > OP gá:γe > ní:de > xébe > KS gá:γe > ǰü:ǰe > OS ká:γe > cü:ce > xé:pe > QU ká:γe > títte > BI > atutí > xépi > OF > atúti > > You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all > show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR > and HI). I personally don't see any way around > reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and > generalized distribution of virtually identical > vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable > even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha > following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ > 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a > whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to > me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence > of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. > > Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan > dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't > know. It may be possible, but whether or not this > happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and > the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been > suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api > 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can > tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that > generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while > "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, > phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. > > There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like > "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this > sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then > there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. > where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist > outside of Dakota as far as I know. > > Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. > :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I > can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to > several. > > Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to > the Semitic part of the discussion. > > Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 2 15:40:49 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:40:49 +0000 Subject: testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. But your “schwa-like” epenthetic vowel is [–e] in 12 or 13 languages in several subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e in these cases. You’re just reconstructing *-e as a “rule” or process instead of as an “item”. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don’t have any way to distinguish the two equivalent “solutions”, and the phonological result is the same either way. > . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. The so-called “consonant finals” in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are in Winnebago. A final –e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the “all final –e in Mandan are epenthetic” solution in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric “consonant-final stems” because he couldn’t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter and Mixco cleared this up. This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can’t. This trick was toyed with in the ’70s as a means of creating additional “economy”. But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable structure, it is, in fact, possible to “predict” the statistically most common vowel syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. > From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn’t get that sort of doubt from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. > When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is just fine. So, in summary, I believe that, (a) whether you reconstruct *e- to Proto-Siouan as a “rule” or an “item”, either way you’re reconstructing *-e, and (b) the “epenthesis” solution creates a lopsided short vowel distribution and an “economy” (feature saving) that, although technically possible, is not genuine for most phonologists. And if vowel length is properly perceived and recorded, the CVC stems or roots are not needed in order to establish accentual pattern. Only in Dakota, which has apparently lost the length distinction, is it a useful analysis. And this brings me to a basic problem in Siouan linguistics, whether historical or synchronic: Because Dakota was the earliest and best documented Siouan language, it has served as a model for subsequent studies of the other Siouan languages. This is understandable, but it has held the discipline back in certain ways because Dakota alone lost vowel length and has simplified in many ways grammatically. Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 2 15:52:55 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:52:55 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al Message-ID: I thought I'd better resend this with the correct subject line instead of "testing". Bob Rory writes: > Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. But your “schwa-like” epenthetic vowel is [–e] in 12 or 13 languages in several subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e in these cases. You’re just reconstructing *-e as a “rule” or process instead of as an “item”. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don’t have any way to distinguish the two equivalent “solutions”, and the phonological result is the same either way. > . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. The so-called “consonant finals” in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are in Winnebago. A final –e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the “all final –e in Mandan are epenthetic” solution in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric “consonant-final stems” because he couldn’t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter and Mixco cleared this up. This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can’t. This trick was toyed with in the ’70s as a means of creating additional “economy”. But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable structure, it is, in fact, possible to “predict” the statistically most common vowel syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. > From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn’t get that sort of doubt from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. > When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is just fine. So, in summary, I believe that, (a) whether you reconstruct *e- to Proto-Siouan as a “rule” or an “item”, either way you’re reconstructing *-e, and (b) the “epenthesis” solution creates a lopsided short vowel distribution and an “economy” (feature saving) that, although technically possible, is not genuine for most phonologists. And if vowel length is properly perceived and recorded, the CVC stems or roots are not needed in order to establish accentual pattern. Only in Dakota, which has apparently lost the length distinction, is it a useful analysis. And this brings me to a basic problem in Siouan linguistics, whether historical or synchronic: Because Dakota was the earliest and best documented Siouan language, it has served as a model for subsequent studies of the other Siouan languages. This is understandable, but it has held the discipline back in certain ways because Dakota alone lost vowel length and has simplified in many ways grammatically. Bob From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Sat Sep 3 02:07:44 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:07:44 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E42A1@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rory wrote: >> Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as >> phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological >> system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after >> a final consonant to clarify that final sound. Bob writes: > But your “schwa-like” epenthetic vowel is [–e] in 12 or 13 languages in several > subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e > in these cases. You’re just reconstructing *-e as a “rule” or process instead of > as an “item”. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don’t have any way to distinguish > the two equivalent “solutions”, and the phonological result is the same either way. Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. >> . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. > The so-called “consonant finals” in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are > in Winnebago. A final –e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a > creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the “all final –e in Mandan are epenthetic” solution > in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric “consonant-final > stems” because he couldn’t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter > and Mixco cleared this up. Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. > This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, > in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most > common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can’t. > This trick was toyed with in the ’70s as a means of creating additional “economy”. > But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable > structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable > structure, it is, in fact, possible to “predict” the statistically most common vowel > syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e that we're talking about here? Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? >> From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much >> less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little >> ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. > I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can > normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant > speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn’t get that sort of doubt > from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. I'm certainly open to this possibility, but the question remains whether these are, in fact, phonemic distinctions. >> When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, >> but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. > Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is > just fine. Thanks. I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 3 19:43:57 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:43:57 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, says "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most common one, (e). That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. > Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. It had me fooled for a long time too, but when Dick Carter did his work on Mandan in about the early '90s, he found length all over the place along with the final -e's that Hollow had left off (for perfectly good accentual reasons if he relied on Dakotan phonology to provide a window into Mandan). > I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e that we're talking about here? I could certainly do that, but the easiest thing to do is to search for them in the Comparative Dictionary MS. If I didn't send you one as an attachment a couple of years back, I apologize. I can get one to you. Just do a search on "PSI[ *" and it will flip from one proto-Siouan reconstruction to the next. You'd get even more using "PMV[ *" (Proto-Mississippi Valley). > Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? Well, I think that would depend on how seriously you take phonology, the status of underlying vs. surface phenomena, the notion of invariance and a host of other factors that have been cussed and discussed in the literature for several decades. For me, at least, the bottom line is "do I NEED to posit exceptional CVC roots in order to explain accent?" And, outside of Dakotan, the answer is apparently "no." It would just cost us an exceptional syllable canon for no reason. Plus, it would skew vowel distribution where, otherwise, we have a number of neat positive generalizations: Certain vowels tend to occur in initial unaccented syllables, certain ones (all of 'em) in accented syllables, and certain ones in post accentual syllables, etc. > I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. > Every linguist needs a "hobby horse", as my colleague Keith Percival has always said, and ours is Dhegiha. Nothing clarifies linguistic theory and washes away the bullshit like lots of real data. bob From saponi360 at YAHOO.COM Sun Sep 4 02:43:26 2011 From: saponi360 at YAHOO.COM (Scott Collins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:43:26 -0700 Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi Message-ID: I'm attempting to try and find these names in the Tutelo-Saponi language. I'm not certain on the types of pronunciations that would have been translated in different ways back then as compared to today so these are my best guess.   Pash, Sepoy, Askarin, and Maraskarin (the four clan mothers of the Saponi) Askarin = aksta/vksteh = cheek Pash = pasahe = hoop or mound or perhaps phasu = head Sepoy = -se = (Verb)assertive/quotative mode and or (Noun)definitve article   + ospe: = know            Maraskarin = maxo:si: = cloud + aksta/vksteh = cheek                   Scott P. Collins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR Evil Is An Outer Manifestation Of An Inner Struggle “Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose.” "The greater the denial the greater the awakening." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU Sun Sep 4 17:48:30 2011 From: David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:48:30 -0600 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E40AC@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Bob et al, Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. Second, I proposed then that the ablaut vowel might have been a re-syllabification of a vowel from a following morpheme. I probably treated all three Lakota ablaut vowels alike, but it would work equally well to have /e/ on the verbs replaced by /a/ or /iN/ if the clitic began with one of those vowels. Third, Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM Mon Sep 5 01:12:20 2011 From: jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM (jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 01:12:20 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E44FE@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry to jump in late on this, but I think Bob is correct in that Dakota is the 'odd man out' here in that Dakota phonology can be analyzed as having epenthesis on some roots. Boas & Deloria were the first (as far as I know) to analyze Dakota as having CVC and (CV)CV roots. It turns out that the CVC roots will surface with an epenthetic vowel but stress falls on the first syllable while bi-syllabic CVCV roots take the stress on the second syllable (as do most Dakota words). The two root types also differ in how they reduplicate: CVC roots reduplicate the entire CVC and then epenthesize a final vowel while CVCV roots reduplicate the final syllable. [sa'pa] "black" comes from /sap/ and reduplicates as [sap-sap-a] [waSte'] "good" comes from /waSte/ and reduplicates as [waSte-Ste] The 'generative' view on this is that stress and reduplication rules apply before epenthesis. This pattern holds up very well for stress and reduplication. Unfortunately, ablaut is not so predictable. Some of the epenthetic vowels DO ablaut but not all of them and some of the non-epenthetic vowels DO ablaut but not all of them. The fact that the other Siouan languages do not have these CVC type roots shows that Dakota has done a bit of reanalysis on their underlying forms. John Kyle On , "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your > previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem > unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your > thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and > especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a > suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away > because it is not really there at all. > But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern > 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to > put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to > reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, > says "all 7 other vowels (iaou iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented > word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most > common one, (e). That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's > the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as > Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic > vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and > others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer > justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly > than before. > > Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. > It had me fooled for a long time too, but when Dick Carter did his work > on Mandan in about the early '90s, he found length all over the place > along with the final -e's that Hollow had left off (for perfectly good > accentual reasons if he relied on Dakotan phonology to provide a window > into Mandan). > > I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old > Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e > that we're talking about here? > I could certainly do that, but the easiest thing to do is to search for > them in the Comparative Dictionary MS. If I didn't send you one as an > attachment a couple of years back, I apologize. I can get one to you. > Just do a search on "PSI[ *" and it will flip from one proto-Siouan > reconstruction to the next. You'd get even more using "PMV[ *" > (Proto-Mississippi Valley). > > Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are > underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? > Well, I think that would depend on how seriously you take phonology, the > status of underlying vs. surface phenomena, the notion of invariance and > a host of other factors that have been cussed and discussed in the > literature for several decades. For me, at least, the bottom line is "do > I NEED to posit exceptional CVC roots in order to explain accent?" And, > outside of Dakotan, the answer is apparently "no." It would just cost us > an exceptional syllable canon for no reason. Plus, it would skew vowel > distribution where, otherwise, we have a number of neat positive > generalizations: Certain vowels tend to occur in initial unaccented > syllables, certain ones (all of 'em) in accented syllables, and certain > ones in post accentual syllables, etc. > > I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes > interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can > often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I > know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from > linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what > I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, > corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. > > Every linguist needs a "hobby horse", as my colleague Keith Percival > has always said, and ours is Dhegiha. Nothing clarifies linguistic theory > and washes away the bullshit like lots of real data. > bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Reinhard.Tognella at AG.CH Mon Sep 5 10:33:32 2011 From: Reinhard.Tognella at AG.CH (Tognella Reinhard JBOG) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:33:32 +0200 Subject: AW: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I received your message, too. Thank you. Though I haven't been able to contribute so far (I am not a linguist, but court clerk interested in language typology and in the native languages of North America in general, but specifically in the languages of the Great Plains [therefore Siouan] - and Yukatek Maya) I enjoy the discussions on this list about those fascinating languages very much. So I would be happy to continue as a user of the SiouanList. Regards from Switzerland Reinhard ________________________________ Von: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] Im Auftrag von Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2011 20:28 An: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Betreff: list relocation notification Aloha all SiouanList users, At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. Hello! This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages. Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on. Thanks! Can this person contact the new UNL list? If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu I understand that the list archives still function as before. Give me your feedback, please. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 ----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 08/29/11 12:47 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject testing THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Mon Sep 5 13:56:35 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:56:35 -0500 Subject: AW: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reinhard: Be assured that not everyone is a degreed professional linguist on this list, such as I. It includes degreed/ non-degreed tribal community persons who have an interest in tribal languages, therefore you are well suited as a list member. We all Thank Mark for taking the effort to recreate a new listing, which is easy to join by simply sending him an Email. The former list process effectively excluded those interested, although in fairness, it was not intentionally meant to do so. Please note, that David Kaufman and I have a particular interest in Kaqchikel Maya of Guatemala, one of the 22 Mayan Languages. On his FaceBook page, he recently posted a a very nice link to a Yukatéc Maya website. It begins with an Anglo American speaking in Yukatéc Mayan, and other encouraging videos of Americans (perhaps others) who have made the effort to learn Yukatéc, perhaps in a background interest with the Mayan Calendar. Perhaps, Dave will send this link via the list here, to save me the hassle of looking it up in FB. Best, Jimm Goodtracks From: Tognella Reinhard JBOG Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 5:33 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: AW: list relocation notification I received your message, too. Thank you. Though I haven't been able to contribute so far (I am not a linguist, but court clerk interested in language typology and in the native languages of North America in general, but specifically in the languages of the Great Plains [therefore Siouan] - and Yukatek Maya) I enjoy the discussions on this list about those fascinating languages very much. So I would be happy to continue as a user of the SiouanList. Regards from Switzerland Reinhard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Von: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] Im Auftrag von Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2011 20:28 An: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Betreff: list relocation notification Aloha all SiouanList users, At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. Hello! This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages. Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on. Thanks! Can this person contact the new UNL list? If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu I understand that the list archives still function as before. Give me your feedback, please. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 ----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 08/29/11 12:47 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject testing THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:17:36 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:17:36 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. Having CVC stems in Dakota is a side effect of the loss of vowel length in that language. To the extent that accent is predictable, it is predictable on initial syllable long vowels. These are precisely the vowels in our “CVC” roots. Thus Pat was using a secondary development from long Vs as an environment for accent. The two developments are closely related, but the long Vs were primary, and CVC roots were a consequence in Dakota right along with initial syll. accent. > I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. I think the normal reflex of final short *-e in Biloxi is /i/, but there are some problems, and, as usual, they relate to Dorsey’s (and Gatschet’s) transcription abilities. These two (who did all the early research on Biloxi) wrote both final –i and final –e. But Mary Haas, in her “Last Words of Biloxi” article, points out that there are three phonetic front vowels in Biloxi: [i], [e] and [ɛ]. The mid one, [e] is an allophone of /i/ word-finally (as it is in nearby Muskogean languages). The real Biloxi phoneme /e/ is phonetically [ɛ], not [e]. But unfortunately Dorsey and, earlier, Gatschet, didn’t always distinguish the phoneme /e/ from the [e] allophone of /i/. So reflexes get lumped in the 19th century transcriptions. But there is no separate, ablauting, *-i. > Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Actually, there are three Proto-Siouan negative morphemes, one usually prefixed, the other two suffixed or enclitic. Dakota –šni is a compound of two of them. The sets are: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *aši *rį CR HI MA -(a)xi -rį-x DA -šį š-ni CH š-gu-ñį š- -ñį WI š-gų́-nį š- -nį OP -aži KS -aži OS -aži QU -aži BI ku...ni ači -ni OF ki…ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne The prefix *ku- is normally found in conjunction with the suffix *-rį [-ni]. Jiwere and Winnebago conveniently combine all three in one enclitic. The Biloxi lexeme ači is translated ‘Oh no!’. The Dakota cognate for my Neg II, above, is probably the dubitative –šį, but I can’t account for nasalization there. I do not know whether Dakotan dialects are unanimous in the forms of these (as one would expect in the case of Sound Change) or whether they disagree a bit as we might expect if they had been subject to borrowing or analogical (Labovian) change. > Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). The ordinary sound change for final short *-e in Crow seems to be –i, but I can’t say much more. If I make room for Crow in my head, I’ll have to forget something else that’s already there. I should add that there are one or two kinds of “ablaut” that defy explanation in terms of vowel cluster (V1+V2) collapse. These are the use of –a in reduplicanda and the use of –a preceding positional continuative auxiliaries (i.e., the use of –ta ‘potential’ replacing –te in Dhegiha). There are no errant *a vowels to provide environments in these cases; they are simply morphological reanalyses, i.e., true Ablaut. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 12:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: a few details about ablaut Hi, Bob et al, Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. Second, I proposed then that the ablaut vowel might have been a re-syllabification of a vowel from a following morpheme. I probably treated all three Lakota ablaut vowels alike, but it would work equally well to have /e/ on the verbs replaced by /a/ or /iN/ if the clitic began with one of those vowels. Third, Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:26:49 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:26:49 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E4901@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? Is this any better? Bob neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *aši *rį CR HI MA -(a)xi -rį-x DA -šį š-ni CH š-gu-ñį š- -ñį WI š-gų́-nį š- -nį OP -aži KS -aži OS -aži QU -aži BI ku...ni ači -ni OF ki…ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:31:56 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:31:56 +0000 Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi In-Reply-To: <1315104206.89368.YahooMailClassic@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: These are a mystery to me. My only observation is the obvious one that "Maraskarin" looks like a compound with "Askarin". Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Scott Collins [saponi360 at YAHOO.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi I'm attempting to try and find these names in the Tutelo-Saponi language. I'm not certain on the types of pronunciations that would have been translated in different ways back then as compared to today so these are my best guess. Pash, Sepoy, Askarin, and Maraskarin (the four clan mothers of the Saponi) Askarin = aksta/vksteh = cheek Pash = pasahe = hoop or mound or perhaps phasu = head Sepoy = -se = (Verb)assertive/quotative mode and or (Noun)definitve article + ospe: = know Maraskarin = maxo:si: = cloud + aksta/vksteh = cheek Scott P. Collins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR Evil Is An Outer Manifestation Of An Inner Struggle “Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose.” "The greater the denial the greater the awakening." From boris at TERRACOM.NET Mon Sep 5 22:22:17 2011 From: boris at TERRACOM.NET (Alan Knutson) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:22:17 -0500 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E492B@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *as(i *ri; CR HI MA -(a)xi -ri;-x DA -s(i; s(-ni CH s(-gu-ñi; s(- -ñi; WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; OP -az(i KS -az(i OS -az(i QU -az(i BI ku...ni ac(i -ni OF ki...ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? > Is this any better? Bob > > > neg. I neg. II neg. III > > PSi *ku *as(i *ri; > CR > HI > MA -(a)xi -ri;-x > DA -s(i; s(-ni > CH s(-gu-ñi; s(- -ñi; > WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; > OP -az(i > KS -az(i > OS -az(i > QU -az(i > BI ku...ni ac(i -ni > OF ki...ni -ni > TU ku...ne -ne > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 22:28:38 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (rankin at KU.EDU) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 22:28:38 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <4E654B99.8080701@terracom.net> Message-ID: Good idea. Ill try it. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Alan Knutson Sender: Siouan Linguistics Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:22:17 To: Reply-To: Siouan Linguistics Subject: Re: a few details about ablaut Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *as(i *ri; CR HI MA -(a)xi -ri;-x DA -s(i; s(-ni CH s(-gu-ñi; s(- -ñi; WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; OP -az(i KS -az(i OS -az(i QU -az(i BI ku...ni ac(i -ni OF ki...ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? > Is this any better? Bob > > > neg. I neg. II neg. III > > PSi *ku *as(i *ri; > CR > HI > MA -(a)xi -ri;-x > DA -s(i; s(-ni > CH s(-gu-ñi; s(- -ñi; > WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; > OP -az(i > KS -az(i > OS -az(i > QU -az(i > BI ku...ni ac(i -ni > OF ki...ni -ni > TU ku...ne -ne > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Sep 6 17:28:27 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:28:27 -0500 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Message-ID: Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mixed-blood names 6-2011.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 40960 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Sep 6 17:31:27 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:31:27 -0500 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <4E654B99.8080701@terracom.net> Message-ID: Aloha Bob and Alan, Good News! It looks like we can also send attachments (at least as .DOC-type files) on the UNL SIOUAN list. Mark Awakuni-Swetland Alan Knutson Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/05/11 05:23 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: a few details about ablaut Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *aši *rį CR HI MA -(a)xi -rį-x DA -šį š-ni CH š-gu-ñį š- -ñį WI š-gų́-nį š- -nį OP -aži KS -aži OS -aži QU -aži BI ku...ni ači -ni OF ki…ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? Is this any better? Bob neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *aši *rį CR HI MA -(a)xi -rį-x DA -šį š-ni CH š-gu-ñį š- -ñį WI š-gų́-nį š- -nį OP -aži KS -aži OS -aži QU -aži BI ku...ni ači -ni OF ki…ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanvalin at BUFFALO.EDU Tue Sep 6 17:32:08 2011 From: vanvalin at BUFFALO.EDU (Robert Van Valin Jr) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:32:08 -0400 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No problem with the attachment RVV On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Tue Sep 6 17:57:51 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:57:51 +0100 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works for me, Mark! Thanks Anthony >>> Mark J Awakuni-Swetland 06/09/2011 18:28 >>> Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. • Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2007 and 2010 • Top in the North West for overall student satisfaction (Sunday Times University Guide 2011) • Top Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010, all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) • Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' • Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From lcumberl at INDIANA.EDU Tue Sep 6 18:31:25 2011 From: lcumberl at INDIANA.EDU (Cumberland, Linda A) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:31:25 -0400 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works for me, too. Maybe you only need to hear from anyone for whom it doesn't work? That would reduce the load on your (and our) inbox. -Linda Quoting Mark J Awakuni-Swetland : > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Tue Sep 6 18:52:48 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:52:48 -0500 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, the attachment opened for me, although the Native names and meanings were against a background of sky blue. I think the idea of being able to do an attachments will be of great assistance, such as when Bob was trying to create his list yesterday. jgt From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:28 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Wed Sep 7 02:47:19 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:47:19 -0600 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This works. Thanks, Mary On 06/09/2011 11:28 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently > configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at YAHOO.COM Wed Sep 7 05:57:07 2011 From: pustetrm at YAHOO.COM (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:57:07 -0700 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works just fine, Mark. Regina ________________________________ From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:28 AM Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgraczyk at AOL.COM Wed Sep 7 20:09:34 2011 From: rgraczyk at AOL.COM (rgraczyk at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:09:34 -0400 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E4901@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: > Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). There are some verb stems ending in -ii and -ee that ablaut, and others that don't. Those that ablaut have -aa before the plural (uu) and before morphemes beginning in a-. There don't appear to be any conditioning factors that would explain this. >The ordinary sound change for final short *-e in Crow seems to be –i, but I can’t say much more. If I make room for Crow in my head, I’ll have to forget something else that’s already there. Scrolling through the CSD, it looks like -i is the most common reflex in Crow of PSI*-e. Randy From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 8 03:17:01 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:17:01 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E44FE@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. > > But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, says "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most common one, (e). It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. Rather, it would allow 9 possible CVC- patterns, where the accent is on the V: CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCiN, CVCaN and CVCuN as well as CVC. In this case, CVC and CVCe might have collapsed together at an early time, either before Siouan split, or separately in the various branches. From that point on, there would be no contradiction between this model and yours. I think this model has three advantages: 1. Ablaut in the non-Dakotan languages is explained naturally by your model of suffixes with initial a-. If the final -e in Siouan verb roots is phonemic, then we have to do some rationalizing about relative "weakness" of vowels to tell why -e goes away before the a- in CVCe roots, while the other 7 vowels are preserved. But if most CVCe roots are underlyingly CVC, then the -e is not there in the first place phonemically and the speakers would therefore never put it there if another vowel was suffixed to the final C. 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. 3. We do not have to suppose that proto-Dakotan roots had to go from CVCe to CVC to CVCa, first losing a final vowel, and then gaining a new one. The Dakotan -a ending would simply be that branch's phonemic reinterpretation of the unmarked vocal release after CVC, in contrast with the -e or -i reinterpretation possibly chosen by other Siouan languages. There would only be one step, from CVC to CVCa, with little phonetic difference between the two. > That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. I'm not familiar enough with the accent and vowel length discussion to argue on this. My dispute is with the EITHER-OR dichotomy you propound above, which I feel invalidly excludes a very reasonable possibility in the middle. I grant that your overall view of the CVC question, grounded on other considerations, may be correct. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Marlene.Hilzensauer at AAU.AT Thu Sep 8 06:50:18 2011 From: Marlene.Hilzensauer at AAU.AT (Marlene Hilzensauer) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:50:18 +0200 Subject: Antw: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aloha, Mark, works fine for me, thanks! Marlene >>> Mark J Awakuni-Swetland 06.09.2011 19:28 >>> Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 9 02:53:50 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 02:53:50 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? > This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. > Rather, it would allow 9 possible CVC- patterns, where the accent is on the V: CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCiN, CVCaN and CVCuN as well as CVC. In this case, CVC and CVCe might have collapsed together at an early time, either before Siouan split, or separately in the various branches. From that point on, there would be no contradiction between this model and yours. > I think this model has three advantages: > 1. Ablaut in the non-Dakotan languages is explained naturally by your model of suffixes with initial a-. If the final -e in Siouan verb roots is phonemic, then we have to do some rationalizing about relative "weakness" of vowels to tell why -e goes away before the a- in CVCe roots, while the other 7 vowels are preserved. But if most CVCe roots are underlyingly CVC, then the -e is not there in the first place phonemically and the speakers would therefore never put it there if another vowel was suffixed to the final C. It's way more complicated than that. It isn't just unaccented -e. Vowel sequences generally simply aren't usually permitted. Post-accentually, the most common outcome is V1+V2 > V2[+long], but there are also glide epenthesis rules where V1+V2 > V1 r V2 (where r has various reflexes in different langs.) Normally this is dh in Omaha. If V1 or V2 is long, it's even more complex. > 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. > 3. We do not have to suppose that proto-Dakotan roots had to go from CVCe to CVC to CVCa, first losing a final vowel, and then gaining a new one. The Dakotan -a ending would simply be that branch's phonemic reinterpretation of the unmarked vocal release after CVC, in contrast with the -e or -i reinterpretation possibly chosen by other Siouan languages. There would only be one step, from CVC to CVCa, with little phonetic difference between the two. What I'm saying, I think, is that you're just hedging on the phonemic principle by renaming -e "the unmarked vocal release". This is merely renaming something that is actually there in all the languages something that isn't there in any of them. It violates simplicity and creates an artificial minority syllable pattern where most Siouan languages don't have one. Most require open syllables. bob > That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. I'm not familiar enough with the accent and vowel length discussion to argue on this. My dispute is with the EITHER-OR dichotomy you propound above, which I feel invalidly excludes a very reasonable possibility in the middle. I grant that your overall view of the CVC question, grounded on other considerations, may be correct. Rory From kdshea at AOL.COM Fri Sep 9 03:49:58 2011 From: kdshea at AOL.COM (kdshea at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:49:58 -0400 Subject: response to test Message-ID: Thank-you for taking on the job of list monitor and host, Mark. I am a subscriber to the list using my old e-mail address at AOL. Would you update my address to kathleendshea at gmail.com for me or tell me how to do that myself? Thanks! Kathy Shea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Fri Sep 9 16:59:58 2011 From: linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:59:58 -0700 Subject: Programmes for translating curriculum Message-ID: Hello: My teammates on a language-documentation project in Panama have added a curriculum-translation component to our project, funded by the Panamanian Ministry of Education (yay!) and partially by our grant. They are familiar with using Toolbox for creating both glosses and free translations from their language to Spanish, but are looking now for a programme more appropriate for translating children's school curricular materials from Spanish to their language (which of course does not involve glosses). Most of the bilingual publications that have been produced so far have been done with Microsoft Publisher, but that's complicated to learn and quite expensive. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Sep 10 02:42:01 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:42:01 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E504F@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. > What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? I don't think we're in disagreement at this point in terms of Occam's razor. If our models are "precisely tantamount" to each other, then mine has no extra step. We are both in agreement that there was a vocalic sound following the final consonant of CVC-E type verb roots, and that the phonetic quality of that vocalic sound was closer to [e] than to any of the other four Latin vowel sounds. The question is whether the speakers at the time ablaut developed in Siouan recognized that sound as phonemic /e/, and hence as a separate contrastive sound constituent of the root, as you advocate, or whether that sound was simply a necessary artifact of ending a word on a consonant, and hence non-phonemic, as I am suggesting. >> This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. > Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. We're both building a pre-final E phonology here, and if mine is slightly more elaborate than yours it is justified by the fact that you are claiming certainty for your model by excluding alternatives, where I only need to show a reasonable alternative that you cannot exclude. Specifically, you are making the strong claim that a CVC model for verbs of your CVCe type is untenable because it would necessarily exclude primary CVCe roots while allowing all 7 other vowels in final position in CVCv forms. I proposed the obvious possibility that both CVC and CVCe roots existed primarily, but collapsed together at an early stage because they were rather similar phonetically. The CVC roots were much more common, and the CVCe roots were perhaps reanalyzed morphologically as CVC. With this very reasonable adjustment to the CVC model, your argument against it as excluding primary final -e loses all force. >> 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. > But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. If the final vowel of CVCv roots is phonemic, we should expect it to contrast frequently so as to distinguish words. The argument about the final vowel above presumes that it does. A couple of messages ago, I asked you to offer a few examples to help guide our argument. You suggested instead that I consult the CSD PDF file and search on "PSI[ *", which moves me along one word at a time. (Yes, in fact you did share it with me, back in 2006. It's a wonderful resource. Thank you very much!) I have been doing this for a while, and admittedly have not yet got far through the file. I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So my question is whether we even have any irreducible active verb roots in common Siouan of form CVCv where final unaccented v is other than -e? If so, can we roll a few out on the table? If not, are we left with only CV, CvCV and CVC(e) patterns? If the latter is the case, then the whole argument above about the final vowels possible for primary CVCv roots becomes moot. > John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. I'm open to that possibility too, and have generally speculated in John's direction in the past. The defense of CVC that I'm currently throwing up is largely motivated by trying to make your suffixed-particle-with-initial-a model work more smoothly in my head. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cpratt at STINTERNET.NET Fri Sep 9 22:28:07 2011 From: cpratt at STINTERNET.NET (Cameron J. Pratt) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:28:07 -0500 Subject: Fw: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Message-ID: Aho! Mark it has been working for me as well. Cameron Pratt ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary C Marino To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:47 PM Subject: Re: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST This works. Thanks, Mary On 06/09/2011 11:28 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 13 20:45:10 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:45:10 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. No, not “orthographic”, phonological. I think this is maybe where our greatest disagreement lies. There is an actual literature in linguistics that discusses all of these questions going back 125+ years. Modern phonology begins with Ščerba, Kruszewski, de Saussure and others in the 19th century, and treatment of these issues like faithfulness, invariance, pattern congruity, generality, degree of abstraction, etc. go way back and have been pondered for a long time by linguists working with a variety of languages. If you look upon this as a simple matter of orthography for a couple of Mississippi Valley Siouan languages, you’ll waste your time trying to “invent” phonology while just “thinking about” one particular problem. It seems to me that saying that the sound [e] everywhere but at the ends of words is the phoneme /e/, but word-finally it is just a “piece” of an allophone of the previous consonant phoneme – which is what you’re saying here – is going to be in big trouble no matter what phonological theory you adopt. We can make a case for epenthesis (of /e/ or /a/, not some vague burp) in Dakota where vowel length has been lost, but it lacks phonological motivation everywhere else. We are actually responsible for hewing to good phonological practice in Siouan linguistics. I used to spend entire semesters trying to get that across. > But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. That’s where “respect for the data” in those cognate sets comes in (all the –e up and down the line). The phoneme correspondences show a reconstructible open syllable language. Period. Pattern congruity dictates a simple structural conclusion unless there is strong motivation that militates for some additional consideration. Only in Dakotan is such a factor found. From a historical perspective that motivation disappears when we restore long vowels. > I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So you started with the entire vocabulary but quickly found that virtually any vowel can occur in final position unaccented. So you restricted your search to verbs. But there were so many pesky stative verbs ending in –ka/-ga, which seems to be a morpheme. The stative roots include lots like žį ‘little’, htą ‘big’, etc. So now it’s just active verbs? Add gą́ąða ‘want’, another bimorphemic stem. We’re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. You’re just ignoring that fact, assigning “morpheme boundaries” wherever you encounter problems. You believe (or hope) that ttąąðį is bimorphemic. OK, let’s say it’s possible -- if it is conjugated 1s ttąblį, 2s ttąšnį (or ttąhnį, whatever), but in Kansa it’s a unit: attąyį, yattąyį, and there’s no reason to believe that ttą is ‘ground’. Some people used to think that mąąðį ‘walk’ was ‘earth-move’ until we discovered mą ‘go’ in Catawba. That’s the kind of comical etymologizing philosophers used to do in the Middle Ages: vulpe ‘fox’ must be vol-ere ‘to fly’ plus pe-dem- ‘foot’, because the fox is fleet of foot. A parallel example: In Spanish all the verbs end in –r. That may make it a morpheme, but it doesn’t make it epenthetic, does it? As we discussed last time, the –e in Siouan active verbs might even be a morpheme, but if it is, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis. I think we just need to take the nouns, verbs and everything else at face value. The phonology of syllable structure is largely autonomous. For example, morpheme boundaries don’t play a role in syllable structure in the cases in which there’s a boundary between a consonant and /h/ or /ʔ/. Mįkhé syllabifies as /mį-kʰé/ even though morphemically it is m-įk-he, and -he is a (conjugated) auxiliary. And waną́pʔį syllabifies /wa-ną-pʔį/ even though -ʔį is the ‘wear’ morpheme. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory M Larson [rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. > What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? I don't think we're in disagreement at this point in terms of Occam's razor. If our models are "precisely tantamount" to each other, then mine has no extra step. We are both in agreement that there was a vocalic sound following the final consonant of CVC-E type verb roots, and that the phonetic quality of that vocalic sound was closer to [e] than to any of the other four Latin vowel sounds. The question is whether the speakers at the time ablaut developed in Siouan recognized that sound as phonemic /e/, and hence as a separate contrastive sound constituent of the root, as you advocate, or whether that sound was simply a necessary artifact of ending a word on a consonant, and hence non-phonemic, as I am suggesting. >> This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. > Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. We're both building a pre-final E phonology here, and if mine is slightly more elaborate than yours it is justified by the fact that you are claiming certainty for your model by excluding alternatives, where I only need to show a reasonable alternative that you cannot exclude. Specifically, you are making the strong claim that a CVC model for verbs of your CVCe type is untenable because it would necessarily exclude primary CVCe roots while allowing all 7 other vowels in final position in CVCv forms. I proposed the obvious possibility that both CVC and CVCe roots existed primarily, but collapsed together at an early stage because they were rather similar phonetically. The CVC roots were much more common, and the CVCe roots were perhaps reanalyzed morphologically as CVC. With this very reasonable adjustment to the CVC model, your argument against it as excluding primary final -e loses all force. >> 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. > But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. If the final vowel of CVCv roots is phonemic, we should expect it to contrast frequently so as to distinguish words. The argument about the final vowel above presumes that it does. A couple of messages ago, I asked you to offer a few examples to help guide our argument. You suggested instead that I consult the CSD PDF file and search on "PSI[ *", which moves me along one word at a time. (Yes, in fact you did share it with me, back in 2006. It's a wonderful resource. Thank you very much!) I have been doing this for a while, and admittedly have not yet got far through the file. I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So my question is whether we even have any irreducible active verb roots in common Siouan of form CVCv where final unaccented v is other than -e? If so, can we roll a few out on the table? If not, are we left with only CV, CvCV and CVC(e) patterns? If the latter is the case, then the whole argument above about the final vowels possible for primary CVCv roots becomes moot. > John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. I'm open to that possibility too, and have generally speculated in John's direction in the past. The defense of CVC that I'm currently throwing up is largely motivated by trying to make your suffixed-particle-with-initial-a model work more smoothly in my head. Rory From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Wed Sep 14 13:11:26 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:11:26 -0500 Subject: MEMEBERS LIST Message-ID: Sky: In my last EM to you, I mentioned that you should send an Em to the Siouan List above to be included on mailings, information & discussions on Siouan Languages. While the group is composed of professional linguists, it is open to community members as well and it can be both confusing (to the uninitiated) as well as very informative, and interesting. Meanwhile, Still in the running to beat the grant deadline. I awoke this morn to find all my work from yesterday... Lost! Mild Frustration is my response to this opportunity to test my mind as to what I was saying and how I said it in the grant and budget justifications edits. Jimm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 15 04:15:58 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:15:58 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E5721@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. > No, not “orthographic”, phonological. I think this is maybe where our greatest disagreement lies. Yes, I think we have ended up with this sort of disagreement before. From my point of view, you tend to confuse phonology with orthography. Your approach is more letter-oriented, which leads to EITHER...OR dichotomies like the one that started this discussion. I am more inclined to pronounce the words to myself, paying attention to the mechanics of how they are made and how these mechanics would evolve from one stage to another. This leads me to consider intermediate possibilities between the EITHER and the OR. We both are interested in the evolution of these languages, but it seems to me that your view of phonological evolution is somewhat more punctuational than mine. >> I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. > So you started with the entire vocabulary but quickly found that virtually any vowel can occur in final position unaccented. So you restricted your search to verbs. But there were so many pesky stative verbs ending in –ka/-ga, which seems to be a morpheme. The stative roots include lots like žį ‘little’, htą ‘big’, etc. So now it’s just active verbs? Add gą́ąða ‘want’, another bimorphemic stem. Yes, I believe it is active verbs of CVCv type that we have been discussing here, as a tangent from your post on ablaut that raised the question of possible CVC roots in that context. In a previous message, I forgot to include "active verb" in the specification list, and was kicking myself shortly after pressing the "Send" button. I apologize for confusing the issue. My question is: Do we have monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv type in Proto-Siouan where v is a vowel other than -e? If so, is there a significant number of them, and what are some examples? As you point out, the stative verbs *žį-ka and *htą-ka and the active verb *gą́ą-ða would not count because they are not monomorphemic. > We’re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. You’re just ignoring that fact, assigning “morpheme boundaries” wherever you encounter problems. I'm not entirely following what you're saying in these sentences. If your comments about syllable structure are in advocacy of Siouan being syllabic and requiring every syllable to end in a vowel, I'm perfectly happy to accept that. That would be a very good reason to require any word that is underlyingly CVC to add a non-contrastive vocalization at the end of it if it is not followed by a suffix that starts with a vowel. Alternatively, perhaps all the CVCe verbs were originally CVCv, where v varied equitably over all the vowels. Then the final v was schwa'ed out, with consequent collapses in distinctiveness, and Siouan was left with CVCe in place of them all. In that case, there was always a vowel there, but at the end of the process the CVC was the sole part that specified semantic value. In this case too, starting from the other direction, the exact pronunciation of the final vowel becomes unimportant, and the CVCe verbs are phonemically, if not phonetically, CVC. > You believe (or hope) that ttąąðį is bimorphemic. OK, let’s say it’s possible -- if it is conjugated 1s ttąblį, 2s ttąšnį (or ttąhnį, whatever), but in Kansa it’s a unit: attąyį, yattąyį, and there’s no reason to believe that ttą is ‘ground’. Some people used to think that mąąðį ‘walk’ was ‘earth-move’ until we discovered mą ‘go’ in Catawba. That’s the kind of comical etymologizing philosophers used to do in the Middle Ages: vulpe ‘fox’ must be vol-ere ‘to fly’ plus pe-dem- ‘foot’, because the fox is fleet of foot. So if the idea that mąąðį means 'earth-move' is comical, exactly how do you relate it to Catawba mą ‘go’? Was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' mąąrį, and Catawban lost the second syllable? In that case, how do you know that the original etymology was not, in fact, 'earth-move', which was used for 'walk' or 'go' in both languages? It is a bimorphemic word, after all, because the second part of it conjugates separately. Or was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' mąą? In that case the Siouan word apparently works out to 'go-move' instead of 'earth-move'. (Reading your commentary in the CSD, I gather you take the latter view.) In Omaha, ttąąðį conjugates as a unit as it does in Kaw. In the CSD, you reconstruct the Proto-Siouan form as *wa-htą́he, and suggest that the Dhegihan form reanalyzed the final -he as ðį, 'be in motion', by analogy with mąąðį. So this word too, though an active CVCv form (unless -he is a separate morpheme), turns out to end in -e in Proto-Siouan. At this point, we still have no Proto-Siouan monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form, where v is other than -e, on the table to serve as evidence that the -e at the end of CVC(e) active verb roots was contrastive, and therefore phonemic. > A parallel example: In Spanish all the verbs end in –r. That may make it a morpheme, but it doesn’t make it epenthetic, does it? I think you would know Latin-Romance history better than I would, but my assumption is that the final -r for Spanish infinitives comes from the -re that seems to end most or all active infinitives in Latin. I agree that it is almost certainly a morpheme, and that if it is a morpheme then it is not purely epenthetic. (I.e., possibly in proto-Latin, the r in -(r)e was epenthetic, and the conditioning -e was later lost in Spanish.) But in any case, I don't think we consider that final -re/-r to be part of the verb root. > As we discussed last time, the –e in Siouan active verbs might even be a morpheme, but if it is, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis. Yes, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis, but it would not be the end of the CVC hypothesis. In that case, we have CVC as the root morpheme, and -e as a separate morpheme that might have meant something like the Latin -re, i.e. a particle marking perhaps an infinitive or stative mode. And I am as open to this hypothesis as to the epenthesis model. If the -e endings are morphemes, then it is a little more realistic to view them as having phonemic value through much or all of Siouan history in the same manner as the Spanish -r. At the same time, it would easily explain why we have so many CVCe active verbs, and few to no active verbs of form CVCv where v is other than -e. We could assume that ablauting particles simply replace the -e particle because the two are modally inconsistent. We would have the problem, though, of explaining where the -e morpheme goes when the verb root is CV, which the epenthesis model nicely avoids. (Neither model avoids the problem of why CV verbs with V = e also ablaut!) Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 15 22:35:03 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:35:03 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al. Message-ID: > Yes, I think we have ended up with this sort of disagreement before. From my point of view, you tend to confuse phonology with orthography. Your approach is more letter-oriented, which leads to EITHER...OR dichotomies like the one that started this discussion. I don't think phonologists "confuse" phonology with spelling, but, you're right, what you seem to be talking about has been known as "the phonemic principle" for over a century. Precise definitions differ, but it IS segment-based for the most part, and a given segment is either present or not in the surface string. There's no "in between". There is a general agreement that a phoneme, whether underlying or superficial, is composed of a set of distinctive features that can, themselves, change, thus altering entire sets of phonemes. And a given feature or phoneme doesn’t have to contrast with all the other phonemes of the language in every single environment. > I am more inclined to pronounce the words to myself, paying attention to the mechanics of how they are made and how these mechanics would evolve from one stage to another. This leads me to consider intermediate possibilities between the EITHER and the OR. We both are interested in the evolution of these languages, but it seems to me that your view of phonological evolution is somewhat more punctuational than mine. I can see that, although I can’t sympathize with the technique as a primary way of learning in a literate society where there are centuries of genuine past scholarship. You must have a very low opinion of past generations of linguists. While I commend the attempt by a highly intelligent person such as yourself to invent linguistics/ phonology ex-novo, I've found that it's generally more useful to take the literature seriously and see what other intelligent scholars have found first. I've heard good things about the recent Linguistic Institute at CU from Justin, and I attended one back in '97 myself to get "caught up" with certain aspects of the discipline. I highly recommend the experience. > I believe it is active verbs of CVCv type that we have been discussing here, as a tangent from your post on ablaut that raised the question of possible CVC roots in that context. In a previous message, I forgot to include "active verb" in the specification list, and was kicking myself shortly after pressing the "Send" button. Gee, that's never happened to me. :-D LOL > My question is: Do we have monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv type in Proto-Siouan where v is a vowel other than -e? If so, is there a significant number of them, and what are some examples? OK, But you realize that you are evidently positing morphemic status for this -e of active verb stems. In effect it would mean "I am an active verb stem." just as -r in Spanish is a morpheme that says "I am the nominalized form of an active verb stem." (i.e., an "infinitive"). As we've agreed before, -e might be a morpheme. JEK has argued for it; I've argued against it. I'm still not satisfied with either argument from a historical point of view. The matter can never be settled from a synchronic point of view. One counter argument is that a morpheme -e should also mark monosyllabic active verbs, but it doesn’t. There IS a different –e that is found affixed to verbs, and that’s the causative morpheme. If the “ablauting” –e is really a morpheme, I’d expect it to be suffixed with an epenthetic glide, -r-, like the causative, but that doesn’t happen. > We’re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. That’s really all I’m saying. Languages have syllable canons. The cognate sets show that proto-Siouan had an open syllable structure and that all your CVC words in fact had the final vowel. Any differences between this surface structure generalization and underlying structure have to be motivated. You can’t just say there are underlying CVC syllables without proper motivation, and you don’t have that except in Dakota and maybe Winnebago. How many times and ways do I have to say it? The cognate sets militate against it and the overall syllable canon militates against it. > So if the idea that mąąðį means 'earth-move' is comical, exactly how do you relate it to Catawba mą ‘go’? One of the salient characteristics of Siouan languages is the compounding of motion verbs. Best treatment is Allan Taylor’s IJAL paper about ’73 or ’74. > . . . how do you know that the original etymology was not, in fact, 'earth-move', which was used for 'walk' or 'go' in both languages? It is a bimorphemic word, after all, because the second part of it conjugates separately. Or was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' mąą? In that case the Siouan word apparently works out to 'go-move' instead of 'earth-move'. (Reading your commentary in the CSD, I gather you take the latter view.) Catawba data do suggest that *wąą was an older motion verb. Why you would have to say ‘earth-move’ for ‘walk’ if there is no other kind of movement for contrast? There’s no ‘water move’, people can’t fly and there were no horses or wheels. In Omaha, ttą́ąðį conjugates as a unit as it does in Kaw. In the CSD, you reconstruct the Proto-Siouan form as *wa-htą́he, and suggest that the Dhegihan form reanalyzed the final -he as ðį, 'be in motion', by analogy with mąąðį. So this word too, though an active CVCv form (unless -he is a separate morpheme), turns out to end in -e in Proto-Siouan. But not in Dhegiha languages. Ðį is unaccented and is an exception to your CVCv rule, such as it is. But you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your “CVC” roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it’s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-ų or –ą. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we’re discussing. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there’s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ‘be’. It’s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ‘be of existence’, ‘be of class membership’, ‘locative be’, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary –he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-hé, ðįk-hé, athą́-he, t-hé, aðį-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it’s meaning seems to be related to ‘locative be’. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-ʔųˑ ‘be, do’. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-ų́, ž-ų́, ʔų, seemingly ‘did’ or ‘was’, but there is also an invariant version with the shape –ų or an apparent reduced *-ą that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic –r- to separate vowels: *rą = [ną] or [na]. It functions to mark ‘anterior mode’ in most languages and is post-verbal. It’s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and –he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ‘this’ or ‘that’. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. > At this point, we still have no Proto-Siouan monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form, where v is other than -e, on the table to serve as evidence that the -e at the end of CVC(e) active verb roots was contrastive, and therefore phonemic. We don’t need “monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form…” That’s another mistaken view of phonology. Many phonemes have a low functional load in particular contexts. They need only contrast in other environments or in other parts of speech. There are lots of nouns, particles, adverbs and active verbs that end in all kinds of vowels. You just want to ignore them. You seem to want to think that different parts of speech (grammatical categories) (or even SUB-categories!) have different phonological inventories. That may possibly be true in some creoles, but it isn’t true in Siouan. From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 15 22:51:12 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:51:12 +0000 Subject: Some proto-Siouan verbal auxiliary particles. Message-ID: For those of you who are bored with the back and forth about Siouan syllable structure, I wanted to repeat here a portion of my latest reply to Rory. It's on a different topic. Any of you who have taken a look at the Comparative Siouan Dictionary may have noticed several recurring endings on reconstructed verbs. Many aspects of these remain unidentified and there should be several nice paper topics in these data. I will attach a version of the comments below to this posting. It is a Word file with all the italics, etc. intact. My current email program won't reproduce italics, bolding, different fonts, etc. Here's the info: ... you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your “CVC” roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it’s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-ų or –ą. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we’re discussing. Several of these crop up as verb suffixes in modern Siouan languages, often with very vague or indeterminate meaning. In the proto language the meanings must have been much more specific. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there’s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ‘be’. It’s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ‘be of existence’, ‘be of class membership’, ‘locative be’, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary –he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-hé, ðįk-hé, athą́-he, t-hé, aðį-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it’s meaning seems to be related to ‘locative be’. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-ʔųˑ ‘be, do’. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-ų́, ž-ų́, ʔų, seemingly ‘did’ or ‘was’, but there is also an invariant version with the shape –ų or an apparent reduced *-ą that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic –r- to separate vowels: *rą = [ną] or [na]. It functions to mark ‘anterior mode’ in most languages and is post-verbal. It’s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and –he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ‘this’ or ‘that’. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CVC again.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24576 bytes Desc: CVC again.doc URL: From carudin1 at WSC.EDU Thu Sep 15 23:41:57 2011 From: carudin1 at WSC.EDU (Catherine Rudin) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:41:57 -0500 Subject: Some proto-Siouan verbal auxiliary particles. Message-ID: What Bob said!! I'm not going to take it on, certainly not any time soon, but SOMEBODY should definitely take a careful look at all this data and tell the rest of us the results. Fascinating!! Catherine >>> "Rankin, Robert L" 09/15/11 5:55 PM >>> For those of you who are bored with the back and forth about Siouan syllable structure, I wanted to repeat here a portion of my latest reply to Rory. It's on a different topic. Any of you who have taken a look at the Comparative Siouan Dictionary may have noticed several recurring endings on reconstructed verbs. Many aspects of these remain unidentified and there should be several nice paper topics in these data. I will attach a version of the comments below to this posting. It is a Word file with all the italics, etc. intact. My current email program won't reproduce italics, bolding, different fonts, etc. Here's the info: ... you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your “CVC” roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it’s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-ų or –ą. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we’re discussing. Several of these crop up as verb suffixes in modern Siouan languages, often with very vague or indeterminate meaning. In the proto language the meanings must have been much more specific. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there’s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ‘be’. It’s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ‘be of existence’, ‘be of class membership’, ‘locative be’, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary –he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-hé, ðįk-hé, athą́-he, t-hé, aðį-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it’s meaning seems to be related to ‘locative be’. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-ʔųˑ ‘be, do’. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-ų́, ž-ų́, ʔų, seemingly ‘did’ or ‘was’, but there is also an invariant version with the shape –ų or an apparent reduced *-ą that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic –r- to separate vowels: *rą = [ną] or [na]. It functions to mark ‘anterior mode’ in most languages and is post-verbal. It’s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and –he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ‘this’ or ‘that’. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Sep 17 00:28:17 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:28:17 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBBA9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Let's see if we can tighten this discussion back up again. I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha ttą́ąðį, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 15:41:04 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:41:04 +0000 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published This is to announce the publication of Tanêks-Tąyosą Kadakathi, Biloxi English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks and is available for free immediate download through http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com. Abstract: Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from Siouan and other la! nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. Thank you. -- David Kaufman, Ph.C. University of Kansas Linguistic Anthropology From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 23:21:53 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:21:53 +0000 Subject: Ablaut ad nauseum. Message-ID: > I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha ttą́ąðį, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. The exact status of CVCv roots (not stems) in Proto-Siouan is not certain. We used Dick Carter's database originally at the '84 workshop at CU, and his database apparently included all the roots he regarded as CVC from his dissertation. Note that these include a lot of STATIVE verbs too. A couple of them were included in the cognate sets I listed in an earlier post. I'll post them again if anybody wants me to. My main point is that we've learned that the selection of lexical verbs isn't random. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: > 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. No, it's not possible to establish the facts for integral parts of the ROOT except by further internal reconstruction. But, YES, an integral part of the STEM AND of the LEXEME, i.e., final -e was present as part of the WORD in ALL of the verbs that show -e, or the regular reflex of *-e, in the cognate sets. We've both cited any number of examples. You can't say it "wasn't there" in proto-Siouan unless you want to claim that each of the languages innovated an epenthesis rule independently. > 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. I see what you mean. I don't know that we have evidence for that, but we DO have evidence that, even in proto-Siouan, active verbs could end in more than just -e, (and also, that CVCv stative verbs could end in unaccented -e). The regularity of such sound changes would affect all lexemes in the language, so nouns, adverbs, etc. would also all end in -e if unaccented. If you're dealing with real Lautgesetz, the phonology is affected across the board. It's only found in particular grammatical or lexical categories if you're dealing with ANALOGY or BORROWING, i.e., so called "Labovian sound change". So I'd say (2), vowel reduction, is ruled out. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I just don't think we can know this for the proto language This is technically possible, but the phoneme /-e/ is still there in reconstructions of Proto-Siouan vocabulary. Given the otherwise completely OPEN syllable structure, I personally wouldn't want to give up that important phonological generalization. It explains accent in Dakotan but not in the rest of the languages. In some phonological theories, "prediction" of the most common vowel wouldn't be acceptable even if it were the only vowel in that environment. > 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. Well, not 'infinitive', but I take your meaning. We could call it a 'stem formative'. Personally, I don't think this is tenable with our present knowledge. If EVERY active verb ended in -e, we could argue this, but many don't. Bear in mind, though, that putative auxiliary I mentioned in my last post, namely *-re. IF your -e is a morpheme that follows a root-final consonant, then *-re would be the allomorph that would follow root-final VOWELS. You could try pursuing that hypothesis. Personally, I just don't know at present whether, e.g., *riN-re would be a proto-Siouan STEM formed from a ROOT with the shape *riN 'be moving'. If you believe -e is a stem-forming morpheme, then the next step might be to check out the function(s) of *-re. I've > I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. It looks to me as though we have been lumping the notions ROOT, STEM and WORD (or LEXEME). These are all distinct concepts. Root is the smallest; word is potentially the largest. We've generally tried to reconstruct the largest of these units possible, given sound change regularity, in the CSD database. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Given my caveats, I think so. I believe we just believe in different degrees of necessity in "interpretation" of reconstructed vocabulary, i.e., in languages other than Dakotan. Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 23:41:24 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:41:24 +0000 Subject: Ablaut ad naus.;. Correction. Message-ID: Sorry, one of my comments got appended to Rory's comment immediately below: > 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I tend to lose control of my cursor in email sometimes. The additional sentence to the effect that "I don't think we can know that" etc. is my own, not Rory's. It belongs somewhere in the paragraph by me that followed. Bob From mawakuni-swetland2 at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Mon Sep 19 13:18:33 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:18:33 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBF58@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Aloha David, Congratulations on the Biloxi-English Dictionary release. UdoN shkaxe, ebthegoN. Mark Awakuni-Swetland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Mon Sep 19 13:37:08 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:37:08 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBF58@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Great! Congratulations, David! Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/18/2011 10:44 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published This is to announce the publication of Tanêks-Tąyosą Kadakathi, Biloxi English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks and is available for free immediate download through http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/.> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com. Abstract: Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from Siouan and other la! nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. Thank you. -- David Kaufman, Ph.C. University of Kansas Linguistic Anthropology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jtmcbri at OSTATEMAIL.OKSTATE.EDU Mon Sep 19 21:09:26 2011 From: jtmcbri at OSTATEMAIL.OKSTATE.EDU (Mcbride-Student,STW, Justin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:09:26 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Way to go, Dave! I've already downloaded it and look forward to reading it. -Justin P.S. It's so nice to be back on the list. Thanks much, Mark. On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Rory M Larson wrote: > Great! Congratulations, David! > > Rory > > > > > *"Rankin, Robert L" * > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > > 09/18/2011 10:44 AM > Please respond to > Siouan Linguistics > > To > SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > cc > Subject > FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published > > > > > From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM > Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published > > This is to announce the publication of Tanêks-Tąyosą Kadakathi, Biloxi > English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It > has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks > and is available for free immediate download through > http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in > accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through < > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/.> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will > be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or > suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David > Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com > >. > > Abstract: > > Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known > resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and > Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana > was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, > not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further > documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also > incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and > published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here > contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries > (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The > Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified > Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my > etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from > Siouan and other la! > nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural > information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for > example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. > > Thank you. > > -- > David Kaufman, Ph.C. > University of Kansas > Linguistic Anthropology > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Sep 19 22:33:25 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:33:25 -0500 Subject: Ablaut ad nauseum. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBFF2@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Excellent! Thank you, Bob. That was a very good response, and it leaves me some things to chew on. At this point, I think it would be the better part of valor to either cap the discussion or take it off-line. My apologies to everyone on the list for this overly-long wrangle! All the best, Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/18/2011 06:24 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut ad nauseum. > I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha ttą́ąðį, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. The exact status of CVCv roots (not stems) in Proto-Siouan is not certain. We used Dick Carter's database originally at the '84 workshop at CU, and his database apparently included all the roots he regarded as CVC from his dissertation. Note that these include a lot of STATIVE verbs too. A couple of them were included in the cognate sets I listed in an earlier post. I'll post them again if anybody wants me to. My main point is that we've learned that the selection of lexical verbs isn't random. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: > 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. No, it's not possible to establish the facts for integral parts of the ROOT except by further internal reconstruction. But, YES, an integral part of the STEM AND of the LEXEME, i.e., final -e was present as part of the WORD in ALL of the verbs that show -e, or the regular reflex of *-e, in the cognate sets. We've both cited any number of examples. You can't say it "wasn't there" in proto-Siouan unless you want to claim that each of the languages innovated an epenthesis rule independently. > 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. I see what you mean. I don't know that we have evidence for that, but we DO have evidence that, even in proto-Siouan, active verbs could end in more than just -e, (and also, that CVCv stative verbs could end in unaccented -e). The regularity of such sound changes would affect all lexemes in the language, so nouns, adverbs, etc. would also all end in -e if unaccented. If you're dealing with real Lautgesetz, the phonology is affected across the board. It's only found in particular grammatical or lexical categories if you're dealing with ANALOGY or BORROWING, i.e., so called "Labovian sound change". So I'd say (2), vowel reduction, is ruled out. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I just don't think we can know this for the proto language This is technically possible, but the phoneme /-e/ is still there in reconstructions of Proto-Siouan vocabulary. Given the otherwise completely OPEN syllable structure, I personally wouldn't want to give up that important phonological generalization. It explains accent in Dakotan but not in the rest of the languages. In some phonological theories, "prediction" of the most common vowel wouldn't be acceptable even if it were the only vowel in that environment. > 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. Well, not 'infinitive', but I take your meaning. We could call it a 'stem formative'. Personally, I don't think this is tenable with our present knowledge. If EVERY active verb ended in -e, we could argue this, but many don't. Bear in mind, though, that putative auxiliary I mentioned in my last post, namely *-re. IF your -e is a morpheme that follows a root-final consonant, then *-re would be the allomorph that would follow root-final VOWELS. You could try pursuing that hypothesis. Personally, I just don't know at present whether, e.g., *riN-re would be a proto-Siouan STEM formed from a ROOT with the shape *riN 'be moving'. If you believe -e is a stem-forming morpheme, then the next step might be to check out the function(s) of *-re. I've > I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. It looks to me as though we have been lumping the notions ROOT, STEM and WORD (or LEXEME). These are all distinct concepts. Root is the smallest; word is potentially the largest. We've generally tried to reconstruct the largest of these units possible, given sound change regularity, in the CSD database. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Given my caveats, I think so. I believe we just believe in different degrees of necessity in "interpretation" of reconstructed vocabulary, i.e., in languages other than Dakotan. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Tue Sep 20 21:39:14 2011 From: linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:39:14 -0700 Subject: Fwd: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bryan James Gordon Date: 2011/9/20 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows To: lingua at listserv.arizona.edu, Siouan Listserv I don't know how many of y'all have already designed one or bought a Tavultesoft licence or something, but finally with Windows 7 the framework for designing your own Windows keymap is free of charge. Not wanting to be at the mercy of Toolbox in wine anymore, or of praat's notorious sound-compatibility issues in Linux, I took the initative and am distributing it free of charge. Send far and wide. It has a special ogonek series for you Americanists, and if you're an Indo-Europeanist or Semiticist or someone else with special non-IPA needs, feel free to dig into the source code and make your own version! Please note, this keymap has software compatibility issues with certain software, notably Word, particularly with the AltGr key which Word persists in either not recognising as AltGr, or refuses to combine with dead keys. (For some reason it works fine in all the rest of Office, and of course in Toolbox, praat, NotePad, anything else you might use.) Anyway, for typing in IPA Word is a bear anyway, autocorrecting and autoformatting as it does. I suggest if you want to polish your document in Word later, fine, but type your IPA elsewhere. -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ipa-gordon.zip Type: application/zip Size: 488817 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 22 14:13:53 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:13:53 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Message-ID: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WALKER Lakota Society-Poyandry.PDF Type: application/octet-stream Size: 177908 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pustetrm at YAHOO.COM Thu Sep 22 17:13:07 2011 From: pustetrm at YAHOO.COM (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:13:07 -0700 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Mark,   Off the top of my head, I don't remember any data on polyandry among the Lakota, neither from the literature nor from my own fieldwork, but this oldie but goodie would be worth checking on in this respect:   Hassrick, Royal B. 1964. The Sioux: Life and customs of a warrior society University of Oklahoma Press   Best, Regina ________________________________ From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:13 AM Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 22 22:37:25 2011 From: george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM (George Wilmes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:37:25 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mark, here is an entry from Buechel's Lakota dictionary (as transcribed into the Colorado Siouan Archive; sorry about the formatting): 1 WIC'>U'N*KES*NI 2 ONE WHO KNOWS NOTHING OR DOES NOT CARE TO DO ANYTHING, IS INCOMPETENT TO KEEP HOUSE. NOTE: THE WORD IS APPLIED ONLY TO WOMEN. 3 N. 4 +LILA TA'NYA'N LOLIYAH'>''A'N S*NI YELO; - CA LOLIH'>''A'N S''E 5 AS THEY WOULD SAY OF A WOMAN WHOSE COOKING WAS VERY POOR, INTIMATING THAT FOR THIS REASON SHE HAD MANY HUSBANDS. 11 P 583 And this from Kaschube's Crow texts: 1 -- I*SAHKE* LU'*:B'6M HAWA*S'^C'^+IS'^I:N KUSC'^+ISSA*L'6HGUK 2 --/ OLD MEN,/ TWO/ BACK AND FORTH,/ SHE GOES./ 8 PAGE51 LINE1 BOTTOM WORD1 +THE +CROW +INDIAN NAME AND THE TRANSLATION HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THE NARRATIVE IS OF A PERSONAL REFERENCE TO A WOMAN WITH TWO HUSBANDS. 11 PAGE51 LINE1 BOTTOM And this from Lowie's Crow word list: 1 DU*':P, DU*':P'6, DU*':PARE, DU*':PAR'6K, DU*':PKA':CE, DU*':PET, DU*':PTUM 2 TWO 3 ADJ. ... 4 BI*':'6CT TSIRA*':RUPDE':T'HBICI'*':ND'6K'H 5 WOMEN'8 THERE IS NONE WHO HAS NOT TWO HUSBANDS ... 11 +P. 89 Hope that helps! George On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a > woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of > his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for > that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 From mary.marino at USASK.CA Fri Sep 23 03:27:40 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:27:40 -0600 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry > (a woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source > of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan > groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term > for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of > relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Sep 23 13:01:14 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:01:14 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <4E7BFCAC.9090301@usask.ca> Message-ID: Aloha Mary, Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. Mark Mary C Marino Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/22/11 10:28 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Fri Sep 23 19:53:24 2011 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:53:24 +0000 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aloha Mark, Mary, and All, Might the practice of the levirate and institutionalized joking between a woman and her husband's brothers be related to a potential sexual relationship there (especially if the brother's wife were to die)? Outside the realm of Siouan-speaking groups, I do recall E. Adamson Hoebel's work on the Cheyenne mentioning that the legal punishment for adultery was NOT enforced for one's wife sleeping with one of a man's brothers because in fact, a brother had the traditional right of sexual access to his brother(s)' wife. Since the traditional anthropological explanation of polyandry emphasizes fraternal examples, it really seems to fit with the concept of temporary or sporadic wife sharing. When would you decide where the former stopped, and actual polyandry began? It was a long time ago when I was asked to teach someone's course on Social Control and Law, so I could be misremembering a detail, but the shock value of that scenario made an impression on my then-youngish mind. This recollection comes especially from the book he wrote about law and legal systems - sorry the exact reference is at home, and my brain is hoping for the weekend to begin soon, but it's an interesting discussion. Naturally, it fits better with a patrilineal descent reckoning, which makes me wonder if it is totally unheard of in Crow? Best, Jill Dr. Jill D. Greer Associate Professor Social Science Department MSSU 3950 E. Newman Road Joplin, MO 64801 417.625.9795 Greer-j at mssu.edu From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:01 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Aloha Mary, Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. Mark Mary C Marino > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > 09/22/11 10:28 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics > To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 This email may contain identifiable personal information that is subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is intended for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail (reply). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Sat Sep 24 03:21:14 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:21:14 -0600 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walker doesn't say anything about the 'buried man' being the woman's brother-in-law. He says that this arrangement could only happen with the husband's consent, seldom given, which argues against any sort of customary right. What Walker describes in this passage doesn't sound like marriage at all: he does not say anything about coresidence, economic obligations between the 'buried man' and the couple, or any of the other concommitants of marriage, except for parentage of children of the relationship, which was assigned to the original pair. I suspect that Walker was of the view that the only socially-approved sex relations a woman could have were marital: polyandry would exist if a woman could have such relations with more than one man at a time. Put simply: if a woman has sex with a man, he's her husband, otherwise she's an adultress. Mary On 23/09/2011 1:53 PM, Greer, Jill wrote: > > Aloha Mark, Mary, and All, > > Might the practice of the levirate and institutionalized joking > between a woman and her husband's brothers be related to a potential > sexual relationship there (especially if the brother's wife were to die)? > > Outside the realm of Siouan-speaking groups, I do recall E. Adamson > Hoebel's work on the Cheyenne mentioning that the legal punishment for > adultery was NOT enforced for one's wife sleeping with one of a man's > brothers because in fact, a brother had the traditional right of > sexual access to his brother(s)' wife. Since the traditional > anthropological explanation of polyandry emphasizes fraternal > examples, it really seems to fit with the concept of temporary or > sporadic wife sharing. When would you decide where the former > stopped, and actual polyandry began? It was a long time ago when I > was asked to teach someone's course on Social Control and Law, so I > could be misremembering a detail, but the shock value of that > scenario made an impression on my then-youngish mind. > > This recollection comes especially from the book he wrote about law > and legal systems - sorry the exact reference is at home, and my > brain is hoping for the weekend to begin soon, but it's an > interesting discussion. Naturally, it fits better with a > patrilineal descent reckoning, which makes me wonder if it is totally > unheard of in Crow? > > Best, > > Jill > > Dr. Jill D. Greer > > Associate Professor > > Social Science Department > > MSSU > > 3950 E. Newman Road > > Joplin, MO 64801 > > 417.625.9795 > > Greer-j at mssu.edu > > *From:*Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] *On Behalf > Of *Mark J Awakuni-Swetland > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2011 8:01 AM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > > Aloha Mary, > Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. > Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. > He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. > Mark > > *Mary C Marino >* > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > > > 09/22/11 10:28 PM > > Please respond to > Siouan Linguistics > > > > > To > > > > SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > cc > > > > Subject > > > > Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > > > > > > > > Hello Mark > > I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the > Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term > 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility > in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does > Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he > give a Lakota expression? > > Mary > > > On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry > (a woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source > of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan > groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term > for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of > relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > _ > _http://omahalanguage.unl.edu _ > _http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 > > > > This email may contain identifiable personal information that is > subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is > intended for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the > intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited > and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic > transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail > (reply). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sat Sep 24 14:47:37 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:47:37 +0200 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Mark, The term 'buried man' is an English rendition of one of two Lakota words for 'son-in-law'. Normally son-in-law was addressed thako's^, but another term was wicha'woh^a. The latter was used for a man who moved to his wife's band, rather than live with the band of his parents. The term 'buried man' is possibly a translation of folk etymology although it must have been around for quite long as it was first mentioned in Riggs' 1852 dictionary. Riggs gave the following definition of wicha'woh^a "a man who lives with his wife's relations, literally a buried man" Buechel defines it as follows: "a man who lives with his relatives, lit. a buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on with them." (sic) Note the lack of "wife's" before 'relatives', which is very likely an omission done by Manhardt (who edited the manuscript after Buechel's death), as omissions of words or parts of words in both the English and Lakota texts are rather frequent in Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard to understand why Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under his editing or why it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript is problematic with respect to so many of its aspects.) Deloria in one of her dictionary manuscripts gives the following definition of wichawoh^a: "son-in-law i.e. living near his wife's relations where he must enact his part, maintaining the correct attitude towards them at all times." Riggs defines wichawoh^a as "a buried man" taking woh^a to mean "cache," but from the second form for daughter-in-law - wiwayuh^a - it is quite clear that woh^a is a contraction of wayu and h^a. (cf. wiwoh^a)." What I think Deloria is hinting at is that the woh^a component of the term originates from the verb iya'yuh^a or one of its forms. This verb verb means 'to follow someone, to constantly stay close to (as a relative, a child to his/her mother etc.)'. I think this makes sense in the context of the kind of son-in-law and daughter-in-law that wicha'woh^a and wiwo'h^a respectively describe. I never encountered any mention of polyandry among the Lakota other than Walker's. In the light of the above I tend to think that Walker misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the information on marriage and marital customs that the Lakota people had given him. Jan Jan Ullrich Lakota Language Consortium www.lakhota.org From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 15:46:57 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:46:57 +0100 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <02b101cc7ac8$e77a46a0$b66ed3e0$@org> Message-ID: Purely for comparative interest i can add that Persian has a word for it daamaad sar khaaneh 'bride groom at the house (of the in laws)'. Some Arabic dialects say g'eidi 'a (diminutive) sitting (ie residing) person'. English probably regards it as unremarkable and so doesn't have a word for it. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 15:47 > Dear Mark, > > The term 'buried man' is an English rendition of one of two > Lakota words for > 'son-in-law'. Normally son-in-law was addressed thako's^, > but another term > was wicha'woh^a. The latter was used for a man who moved to > his wife's band, > rather than live with the band of his parents. > > The term 'buried man' is possibly a translation of folk > etymology although > it must have been around for quite long as it was first > mentioned in Riggs' > 1852 dictionary. Riggs gave the following definition of > wicha'woh^a > > "a man who lives with his wife's relations, literally a > buried man" > > Buechel defines it as follows: "a man who lives with his > relatives, lit. a > buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on > with them." > (sic) Note the lack of "wife's" before 'relatives', which > is very likely an > omission done by Manhardt (who edited the manuscript after > Buechel's death), > as omissions of words or parts of words in both the English > and Lakota texts > are rather frequent in Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard > to understand why > Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under > his editing or why > it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript > is problematic > with respect to so many of its aspects.) > > Deloria in one of her dictionary manuscripts gives the > following definition > of wichawoh^a: "son-in-law i.e. living near his wife's > relations where he > must enact his part, maintaining the correct attitude > towards them at all > times." Riggs defines wichawoh^a as "a buried man" taking > woh^a to mean > "cache," but from the second form for daughter-in-law - > wiwayuh^a - it is > quite clear that woh^a is a contraction of wayu and h^a. > (cf. wiwoh^a)." > > What I think Deloria is hinting at is that the woh^a > component of the term > originates from the verb iya'yuh^a or one of its forms. > This verb verb means > 'to follow someone, to constantly stay close to (as a > relative, a child to > his/her mother etc.)'. I think this makes sense in the > context of the kind > of son-in-law and daughter-in-law that wicha'woh^a and > wiwo'h^a respectively > describe. > > I never encountered any mention of polyandry among the > Lakota other than > Walker's. In the light of the above I tend to think that > Walker > misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the information on > marriage and > marital customs that the Lakota people had given him. > > Jan > > > > Jan Ullrich > Lakota Language Consortium > www.lakhota.org > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 15:53:32 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:53:32 +0100 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <02b101cc7ac8$e77a46a0$b66ed3e0$@org> Message-ID: Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard > to understand why > Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under > his editing or why > it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript > is problematic > with respect to so many of its aspects.) De mortuis non nisi bonum. We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a lot of effort into that work with the meager facilities that he had, also re-editing it at an advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing around for a long time. I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. Bruce From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sat Sep 24 16:29:01 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:29:01 +0200 Subject: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) In-Reply-To: <1316879612.12337.YahooMailClassic@web29509.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > De mortuis non nisi bonum. Right! My comment was more about the alive who made the decision to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at his advanced age. > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a lot of effort into > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also re-editing it at an > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing around for a long time. > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making the first edition available to the public! I was mainly referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it doesn't include valuable data, but that without much research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a major proportion. So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to figure out which parts are incorrect. Jan From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 18:03:59 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:03:59 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) In-Reply-To: <02c501cc7ad7$119c1220$34d43660$@org> Message-ID: Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is very difficult to see in the small print and the second edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be interested to know how much of the data you consider to be inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have had their doubts about these items, but is there really that much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > Right! > My comment was more about the alive who made the decision > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at > his advanced age. > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a > lot of effort into > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also > re-editing it at an > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing > around for a long time. > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making > the first edition available to the public! I was mainly > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt > to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, > but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a > major proportion. > So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > Jan > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sat Sep 24 18:43:47 2011 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:43:47 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing Message-ID: My two cents regarding all this are in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number 2, April 2004. Willem de Reuse ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is very difficult to see in the small print and the second edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be interested to know how much of the data you consider to be inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have had their doubts about these items, but is there really that much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > Right! > My comment was more about the alive who made the decision > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at > his advanced age. > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a > lot of effort into > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also > re-editing it at an > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing > around for a long time. > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making > the first edition available to the public! I was mainly > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt > to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, > but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a > major proportion. > So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > Jan > From chafe at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Sat Sep 24 20:03:06 2011 From: chafe at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:03:06 -0700 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A26648218257C71@CH1PRD0102MB136.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I met Paul Manhart at the BAE in the early 1960s, and I feel that his reputation needs a little polishing at this point. He was a serious individual who realized, much to his credit, that the huge amount of material left behind by Buechel should be made generally available. He knew he was not a linguist, but he went ahead and worked hard on doing what he could. I'm not sure why he didn't receive more help with the second edition, but I wouldn't blame him or his "advanced age" for its deficiencies. Rather, he should be celebrated for passing on to us Buechel's remarkable heritage. Saying "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" (I believe the word is "nil") suggests a repressed desire to be derogatory, which I think is uncalled for. That's my two cents worth. Wally From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 24 22:21:55 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:21:55 +0000 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to Bryan we have an IPA keyboard for Windows minus Word. I have a complementary Siouan keyboard that works only with Word as far as I know and will attach it here. The symbol set I'm attaching is non-IPA, but it's the one commonly used by Siouanists. This Siouan keyboard for Word takes advantage of the fact that Word uses two different sets of commands using the ALT key to send identical instructions to the program. I have merely reduced these to a single set of ALT commands and then used the other set to send phonetic characters to the text. Specifically, if you hold down the ALT key while typing various letter keys, you get the various Word menus, e.g., ALT-i gives you the “insertion” menu, and ALT-o gives you the “formatting” menu, etc. But pressing the ALT key and then pressing the “i” or “o” keys afterward gives exactly the same two menus. But it turns out that Word is using two different code strings to send these identical commands. So, for example, you can hold down ALT and press “o” to send an accented “ó” to your text, but pressing ALT and then pressing “o” will still display the formatting menu. This discovery frees up all the ALT+alphanumeric characters for typing phonetic symbols and doesn’t hamper displaying the menus in Word at all. I have programmed my keyboard to produce all the phonetic characters I need by holding down ALT and pressing mnemonic alphanumeric keys at the same time. In short, using the attached normal.dot file: ALT-Vowel gives the accented vowel. ALT-SHIFT-vowel gives the nasal vowel ALT-consonant gives the various modified consonants. I have attached a key to using my ALT combinations. I have also attached the normal.dot file that will program Word to produce the symbols. It works with Windows XP and Vista, but I have not tested it with Windows 7 or any of the earlier operating systems. I have no idea if it would work for Word running under Apple’s DOS. What I recommend is that you locate your normal.dot file and rename it xnormal.dot. Then copy the attached normal.dot to the same directory on your own PC. This will allow you to try out my keyboard program while retaining the ability to delete it if you don’t like it and go back to your own normal.dot later. You will most likely find normal.dot in the following directory: C:\Documents and Settings\your name\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates. You can, of course, customize this file any way you like. I have stuck to standard Siouanist and Americanist symbols. My feeling is that they have become standard for our discipline. While I have nothing against IPA, it does not provide useful symbols for phonology as opposed to phonetics. In my considerable experience with European languages, I have found that one has to learn a different phonetic alphabet for every language (and sometimes more than one). We do not do students a favor by implying that they only need learn one phonetic alphabet. However, using the ALT+i(nsert)+s(ymbol) command and menu, you can reprogram this normal.dot with whatever symbol set you like. I originally did this keyboard using the Gentium font, downloadable free from the SIL website. You may want to add Gentium to your font collection. However, within a given document, you should be able to just switch fonts to any other Unicode set that has all the necessary symbols if you want. (Some, especially older, Unicode fonts lack a glottal stop, a j with a háček (ǰ) and an “o” with the ogonek beneath it (ǫ)). If you choose not to install Gentium, you might try viewing these symbols in Times New Roman. (I simply don’t know what happens if Word calls for a phonetic symbol in a font that isn’t installed.) Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Normal.dot Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: Normal.dot URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: keyboard.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: keyboard.doc URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 24 23:02:31 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:02:31 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: Father Manhart attended a couple of the early Siouan Conferences and gave short papers. There were a few covert comments about "homilies" and the like, and I'm afraid he probably wasn't made to feel particularly welcome. But both Jan and Wally are right. Our predecessors were almost all "talented amateurs". Horatio Hale, James Owen Dorsey, and Francis Laflesche were among them. Others were primarily ethnographers who documented languages out of a sense of duty, John R. Swanton, and Robert Lowie among them. Where would we be without them? We'd know next to nothing about Tutelo, Ofo, Biloxi, Quapaw and several other languages, and those of us studying Kansa, Omaha, Ponca, and Osage would have had to start virtually from scratch. It's true that they all made their share of mistakes for us to try to sort out, but that's the history of scientific inquiry. I've spent enormous amounts of time trying to correct the transcription errors in Dorsey and add things like vowel le! ngth, but without Dorsey's manuscript materials to work from, my own data collection for Kansa would have been poor indeed. I guess Newton's famous quotation sums it up: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Bob From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 25 11:01:49 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:01:49 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC87@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well put, Bob! >>> "Rankin, Robert L" 25/09/2011 00:02 >>> Father Manhart attended a couple of the early Siouan Conferences and gave short papers. There were a few covert comments about "homilies" and the like, and I'm afraid he probably wasn't made to feel particularly welcome. But both Jan and Wally are right. Our predecessors were almost all "talented amateurs". Horatio Hale, James Owen Dorsey, and Francis Laflesche were among them. Others were primarily ethnographers who documented languages out of a sense of duty, John R. Swanton, and Robert Lowie among them. Where would we be without them? We'd know next to nothing about Tutelo, Ofo, Biloxi, Quapaw and several other languages, and those of us studying Kansa, Omaha, Ponca, and Osage would have had to start virtually from scratch. It's true that they all made their share of mistakes for us to try to sort out, but that's the history of scientific inquiry. I've spent enormous amounts of time trying to correct the transcription errors in Dorsey and add things like vowel le! ngth, but without Dorsey's manuscript materials to work from, my own data collection for Kansa would have been poor indeed. I guess Newton's famous quotation sums it up: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Bob Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. •Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2011 the third time in five years •Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) •Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' Personal Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full English public universities) •Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback (National Student Survey 2011, 93 full English public universities) •Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' •Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sun Sep 25 12:22:57 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:22:57 +0200 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: What I find unreasonable and uncalled for in the way this thread evolved is that the discussion of the inaccuracies in earlier documentary linguistic works is interpreted by some as derogatory. Taking a critical look at the previous works is fundamental to furthering the research on a language. So I don't see why critical analyses of their works should be interpreted as dismissing the merits or questioning the good intentions of the early lexicographers, most of whom were indeed amateur linguists. In the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary I attempted to provide a fair evaluation of the contribution of the early Dakota and Lakota dictionaries, discussing both their strong and weak points. I emphasized that despite their flaws our current research on the language would have been much more difficult without them. What I think has actually been much more problematic than the quality of the early Dakota and Lakota dictionaries is the lack of critical approach to them. Too often have they been described and used as authoritative and definitive works. I think they should be viewed as a valuable but still preliminary work in progress. Many of the problems with Dakota/Lakota lexicography began with the Dakota translation of the Bible. A significant proportion of this translation has morphological and syntactical constructions that are not attested by data from the authentic texts (early or modern). It is hard to judge whether this was caused by poor translation skills or low Dakota language competence of the bilingual French and Dakota speaking mixed-blood Michael Renville who was the main assistant to Riggs and the Pond brothers during the translation. But what cannot be doubted is that the Riggs dictionary was largely based on this problematic text. And there is plenty of evidence that Buechel used the Riggs Dakota dictionary as his primary source for his Lakota dictionary manuscript (especially in his early years in South Dakota) and borrowed heavily from it. Approximately 70% of the Buechel entries were taken directly from Riggs and more than half of these were never extended nor altered in any way. A large number of these entries was rejected by Deloria or by other native speakers during later research, as not being Lakota words at all. It is clear, therefore, that these entries were never checked with native speakers or attested from texts before the dictionary was first published in 1973. This is one of the reasons I question the decision by Univ. of Nebraska to publish the second edition without any research. Ultimately this means that errors introduced by unidiomatic Bible translation originating in 1840s as (well as other types of inaccuracies) represent a large portion of a book published 152 years later (in 2002) and described by the press as "The most complete and up-to-date Lakota dictionary." Manhart's editing further deepened many of the problems with the Buechel manuscript and brought new ones, still it was good to have the first edition available. But I find it difficult to see any improvements in the second edition. The inconsistencies in spelling and orthography use are exacerbated, translations of the example sentences are mostly incorrect, the chosen type face is hard to read, omissions of words were not fixed, no attempt to involve native speakers was made etc. Reprinting the first edition would have probably done a better service to the researchers on the language. If anyone is interested in reading more of my "two cents" on the early dictionaries please see the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary. In it I categorize some of the inaccuracies of the early works, but among other things I also say the following: "Manhart's contribution in making Buechel's manuscript available to the public cannot be dismissed, even if most of his editorial decisions were controversial. The Buechel dictionary remains a valuable resource, one that has to be taken into account by any lexicographer who is ready to approach it critically." Jan From george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM Sun Sep 25 14:34:25 2011 From: george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM (George Wilmes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:34:25 -0500 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC25@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Bob! Another option in Word (especially for Mac users, who may not be able to use the Windows keyboard) is to make the AutoCorrect feature work for you instead of against you. For example, you can have it change the sequence "o~" to "o" followed by Alt+0328 (ogonek combining diacritic; requires a Unicode font such as Arial Unicode MS). Better yet, you can just change the sequence "~~" to the ogonek, so that you can apply it after any vowel. The same can be done for other combining diacritics such as accents. Obviously, this approach works only in Word and will not apply to other programs (unless they happen to have their own AutoCorrect feature,which would have to be configured separately). On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Thanks to Bryan we have an IPA keyboard for Windows minus Word.  I have a complementary Siouan keyboard that works only with Word as far as I know and will attach it here.  The symbol set I'm attaching is non-IPA, but it's the one commonly used by Siouanists. > > This Siouan keyboard for Word takes advantage of the fact that Word uses two different sets of commands using the ALT key to send identical instructions to the program.  I have merely reduced these to a single set of ALT commands and then used the other set to send phonetic characters to the text. > > Specifically, if you hold down the ALT key while typing various letter keys, you get the various Word menus, e.g., ALT-i gives you the “insertion” menu, and ALT-o gives you the “formatting” menu, etc.  But pressing the ALT key and then pressing the “i” or “o” keys afterward gives exactly the same two menus.  But it turns out that Word is using two different code strings to send these identical commands.  So, for example, you can hold down ALT and press “o” to send an accented “ó” to your text, but pressing ALT and then pressing “o” will still display the formatting menu.  This discovery frees up all the ALT+alphanumeric characters for typing phonetic symbols and doesn’t hamper displaying the menus in Word at all.  I have programmed my keyboard to produce all the phonetic characters I need by holding down ALT and pressing mnemonic alphanumeric keys at the same time.  In short, using the attached normal.dot file: > ALT-Vowel gives the accented vowel. > ALT-SHIFT-vowel gives the nasal vowel > ALT-consonant gives the various modified consonants. > > I have attached a key to using my ALT combinations. > > I have also attached the normal.dot file that will program Word to produce the symbols.  It works with Windows XP and Vista, but I have not tested it with Windows 7 or any of the earlier operating systems.  I have no idea if it would work for Word running under Apple’s DOS.  What I recommend is that you locate your normal.dot file and rename it xnormal.dot.  Then copy the attached normal.dot to the same directory on your own PC.  This will allow you to try out my keyboard program while retaining the ability to delete it if you don’t like it and go back to your own normal.dot later.  You will most likely find normal.dot in the following directory: > C:\Documents and Settings\your name\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates. > > You can, of course, customize this file any way you like. > > I have stuck to standard Siouanist and Americanist symbols.  My feeling is that they have become standard for our discipline.  While I have nothing against IPA, it does not provide useful symbols for phonology as opposed to phonetics.  In my considerable experience with European languages, I have found that one has to learn a different phonetic alphabet for every language (and sometimes more than one).  We do not do students a favor by implying that they only need learn one phonetic alphabet.  However, using the ALT+i(nsert)+s(ymbol) command and menu, you can reprogram this normal.dot with whatever symbol set you like. > > I originally did this keyboard using the Gentium font, downloadable free from the SIL website.  You may want to add Gentium to your font collection.  However, within a given document, you should be able to just switch fonts to any other Unicode set that has all the necessary symbols if you want.  (Some, especially older, Unicode fonts lack a glottal stop, a j with a háček (ǰ) and an “o” with the ogonek beneath it (ǫ)).  If you choose not to install Gentium, you might try viewing these symbols in Times New Roman.  (I simply don’t know what happens if Word calls for a phonetic symbol in a font that isn’t installed.) > > Bob > > From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 25 19:34:07 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:34:07 +0000 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, George. That's a great technique. That @#$% program that keeps changing my i's to I has to be worth something!! Now, does anybody have enough clout with Microsoft to get them to fix Word so that we can type phonetic characters directly into their search boxes? It's a gigantic pain in the a** to have to "select", then "copy" and "paste" any phonetic character I need to search on. Seems to me the same typing conventions I use in text ought to work in the search box, but no such luck. Best, Bob > Thanks Bob! Another option in Word (especially for Mac users, who may not be able to use the Windows keyboard) is to make the AutoCorrect feature work for you instead of against you. For example, you can have it change the sequence "o~" to "o" followed by Alt+0328 (ogonek combining diacritic; requires a Unicode font such as Arial Unicode MS). Better yet, you can just change the sequence "~~" to the ogonek, so that you can apply it after any vowel. The same can be done for other combining diacritics such as accents. Obviously, this approach works only in Word and will not apply to other programs (unless they happen to have their own AutoCorrect feature,which would have to be configured separately). From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 25 20:07:34 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:07:34 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <007401cc7b7d$dbaf9ef0$930edcd0$@org> Message-ID: Sorry if any of my comment was misinterpreted. I completely agree with you that all previous scholarship should be open to thorough criticism and correction. All I was pointing out was that we linguists hadn't perhaps treated Father Manhart with the proper personal respect when he came to the early conferences. I remember having this same conversation with Carolyn Quintero multiple times. She tended to exercise a gentler hand dealing with the problems with Laflesche's Osage Dictionary (1932) than I did. I felt she should publish a thorough critique of his transcription errors and his inclusion of Omaha vocabulary and grammatical morphemes when he didn't have accurate Osage data. These are serious problems with the '32 Osage dict. and the Osages are well-aware of them, although they tend to criticize the errors as being "Ponca" rather than Omaha because of their geographical proximity to the former. I also did a paper at the Siouan Conference at the Kaw Nation several years back on Dorsey's transcriptions, which were very inconsistent in several important respects. I guess I need to gussie up that paper and the one from Joplin on vowel length and get them into print. Bob ________________ > What I find unreasonable and uncalled for in the way this thread evolved is that the discussion of the inaccuracies in earlier documentary linguistic works is interpreted by some as derogatory. Taking a critical look at the previous works is fundamental to furthering the research on a language. From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 26 00:16:24 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:16:24 +0000 Subject: Siouan symbols in different fonts. Message-ID: The attached Word document gives samples of the characters from the normal.dot I posted in a variety of popular fonts. Several fonts support all of the characters, others only some of them. It is possible that you may have a later version of some of these fonts if you are using a Vista or Windows 7 computer. These samples were typed on my trusty XP desktop. Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FONT samples.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: FONT samples.doc URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 26 12:48:14 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:48:14 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A26648218257C71@CH1PRD0102MB136.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking IJAL which is really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of the old ones, but I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the 'designated' library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible shame. If you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would be grateful. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem wrote: > From: De Reuse, Willem > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > My two cents regarding all this are > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number > 2, April 2004. > > Willem de Reuse > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry > inquiry) > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is > very difficult to see in the small print and the second > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > interested to know how much of the data you consider to be > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have > had their doubts about these items, but is there really that > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > wrote: > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry inquiry) > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > Right! > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > decision > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > especially at > > his advanced age. > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have > put a > > lot of effort into > > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, > also > > re-editing it at an > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only > thing > > around for a long time. > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in > making > > the first edition available to the public! I was > mainly > > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary > in > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest > attempt > > to make corrections based on research (with speakers > or from > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not > that it > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the > data > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > definitions > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like > Riggs, > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations > of > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is > perfect, > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > constitutes a > > major proportion. > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > inevitably > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is > able to > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > Jan > > > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 26 13:03:32 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:32 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: Dear Wallace, Thank you for the correction to my schoolboy Latin. No derogatory implication was intended, in fact quite the opposite i.e. I was defending him. Sincerity not sarcasm was the tone. Maybe it's the old problem of England and America being separated by the same language. I also met Manhart sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s on a visit to the (Red Cloud?) school and monastery in Pine Ridge where I stayed a few days and had many conversations with him. He was at the time fairly frail I thought and I thought it was rather heroic of him to have undertaken the job again, which is why I mentioned the 'advanced age'. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Wallace Chafe wrote: > From: Wallace Chafe > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 21:03 > I met Paul Manhart at the BAE in the > early 1960s, and I feel that his reputation needs a little > polishing at this point. He was a serious individual who > realized, much to his credit, that the huge amount of > material left behind by Buechel should be made generally > available. He knew he was not a linguist, but he went ahead > and worked hard on doing what he could. I'm not sure why he > didn't receive more help with the second edition, but I > wouldn't blame him or his "advanced age" for its > deficiencies. Rather, he should be celebrated for passing on > to us Buechel's remarkable heritage. Saying "De mortuis nil > nisi bonum" (I believe the word is "nil") suggests a > repressed desire to be derogatory, which I think is uncalled > for. > > That's my two cents worth. > Wally > From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Mon Sep 26 14:10:12 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:10:12 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <1317041294.13587.YahooMailClassic@web29510.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree, Bruce - it's made things increasingly difficult for Americanists in the UK. Let's hope they haven't trashed them. Anthony >>> shokooh Ingham 26/09/2011 13:48 >>> Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking IJAL which is really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of the old ones, but I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the 'designated' library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible shame. If you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would be grateful. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem wrote: > From: De Reuse, Willem > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > My two cents regarding all this are > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number > 2, April 2004. > > Willem de Reuse > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry > inquiry) > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is > very difficult to see in the small print and the second > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > interested to know how much of the data you consider to be > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have > had their doubts about these items, but is there really that > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > wrote: > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry inquiry) > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > Right! > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > decision > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > especially at > > his advanced age. > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have > put a > > lot of effort into > > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, > also > > re-editing it at an > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only > thing > > around for a long time. > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in > making > > the first edition available to the public! I was > mainly > > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary > in > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest > attempt > > to make corrections based on research (with speakers > or from > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not > that it > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the > data > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > definitions > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like > Riggs, > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations > of > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is > perfect, > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > constitutes a > > major proportion. > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > inevitably > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is > able to > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > Jan > > > Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. •Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2011 the third time in five years •Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) •Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' Personal Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full English public universities) •Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback (National Student Survey 2011, 93 full English public universities) •Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' •Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Tue Sep 27 18:14:04 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:14:04 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <4E8095D2.6AA4.00A6.0@edgehill.ac.uk> Message-ID: I wish I knew. I haven't been able to find out Bruce --- On Mon, 26/9/11, Anthony Grant wrote: > From: Anthony Grant > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Monday, 26 September, 2011, 15:10 > I agree, Bruce - it's made things > increasingly difficult for > Americanists in the UK. Let's hope they haven't > trashed them. > > Anthony > > > > >>> shokooh Ingham > 26/09/2011 13:48 >>> > Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking > IJAL which is > really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of > the old ones, but > I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the > 'designated' > library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible > shame. If > you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would > be grateful. > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem > wrote: > > > From: De Reuse, Willem > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > > My two cents regarding all this are > > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, > Number > > 2, April 2004. > > > > Willem de Reuse > > ________________________________________ > > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry > > inquiry) > > > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > > republishing was to make a more visually readable > dictionary > > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use > of dots > > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants > is > > very difficult to see in the small print and the > second > > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > > interested to know how much of the data you consider > to be > > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious > to put > > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and > most > > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will > have > > had their doubts about these items, but is there > really that > > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you > say? > > Bruce > > > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > > wrote: > > > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > > polyandry inquiry) > > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > > > > Right! > > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > > decision > > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > > especially at > > > his advanced age. > > > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to > have > > put a > > > lot of effort into > > > > that work with the meager facilities that he > had, > > also > > > re-editing it at an > > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the > only > > thing > > > around for a long time. > > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution > in > > making > > > the first edition available to the public! I was > > mainly > > > referring to the decision to re-publish the > dictionary > > in > > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the > slightest > > attempt > > > to make corrections based on research (with > speakers > > or from > > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is > not > > that it > > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without > much > > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of > the > > data > > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > > definitions > > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, > like > > Riggs, > > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic > translations > > of > > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary > is > > perfect, > > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > > constitutes a > > > major proportion. > > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > > inevitably > > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one > is > > able to > > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, > Edge Hill > University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, > successful > and distinctive higher education provider. > > •Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the > Year 2011 the > third time in five years > •Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher > Education > Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part > time, first & > foundation degrees) > •Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' > Personal > Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full > English public > universities) > •Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback > (National Student Survey > 2011, 93 full English public universities) > •Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in > 'The Sunday Times > Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' > •Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 > inspection cells, > Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report > 12/5/2011 > > ----------------------------------------------------- > This message is private and confidential. If you have > received this > message in error, please notify the sender and remove it > from your > system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of > the author > and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or > associated > companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email > traffic data and also > the content of email for the purposes of security and > business > communications during staff absence. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > From geocultural at YAHOO.COM Thu Sep 1 03:16:54 2011 From: geocultural at YAHOO.COM (Robert Myers) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:16:54 -0700 Subject: Fw: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: <1314712271.99736.YahooMailNeo@web110313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Glad to be a continued part of the Siouan listserv. Robert Myers Champaign, IL geocultural at yahoo.com --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: >From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland >Subject: list relocation notification >To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu >Date: Monday, August 29, 2011, 1:28 PM > > >Aloha all SiouanList users, > >At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. > >The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. > >The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. > >It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu > >I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. > >For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu > >I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. >Hello! ?This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages. ?Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on. ?Thanks! >Can this person contact the new UNL list? > >If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu > >I understand that the list archives still function as before. > >Give me your feedback, please. > >Mark >Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies >Native American Studies Program Liaison >University of Nebraska >Department of Anthropology >841 Oldfather Hall >Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > >http://omahalanguage.unl.edu >http://omahaponca.unl.edu >Phone 402-472-3455 >FAX: 402-472-9642 >----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- > >Mark J Awakuni-Swetland >Sent by: Siouan Linguistics >08/29/11 12:47 PM >Please respond to >Siouan Linguistics > To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu >cc >Subject testing > > > > >THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST > > >Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies >Native American Studies Program Liaison >University of Nebraska >Department of Anthropology >841 Oldfather Hall >Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > >http://omahalanguage.unl.edu >http://omahaponca.unl.edu >Phone 402-472-3455 >FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA Thu Sep 1 03:37:47 2011 From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA (voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:37:47 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235DCB29@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob & Bruce, Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand for reference, but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a final consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with the final consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec 'fire', etc. Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does Winnebago just drop some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference works handy will have to check it. As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly add extra consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone ever explained what the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might mean? Can they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding even vaguely consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? Exactly the same problem arises with Indo-European root extensions. It looks to me like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in flicker, flit, flash, flip, and flutter. Paul On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Bruce, > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will > return to this issue when I get back. > > Best, > > Bob > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for > that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in > certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being one I think. She > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these > stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed much and > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Thu Sep 1 13:27:23 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:27:23 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al Message-ID: Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you. I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan. The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan? I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic. I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings. I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier. The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense. He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> ?> ? etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as s?ta ?clear?, ??ta ?smoky?, ??ta ?grey?; s?pa ?black?, ??pa ?dirty?; zi ?yellow?,?i ?tawny?, ?i ?brown?. I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean? Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions. It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels. The > > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable. Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words. I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that. I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go. I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 13:37:45 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (rankin at KU.EDU) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:37:45 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <4E5EFE0B.7080702@westman.wave.ca> Message-ID: Yes Winn. lost final short unaccented -e for the most part. Dakotan MAY have also, replacing it with -A. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Sender: Siouan Linguistics Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:37:47 To: Reply-To: Siouan Linguistics Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bob & Bruce, Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand for reference, but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a final consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with the final consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec 'fire', etc. Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does Winnebago just drop some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference works handy will have to check it. As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly add extra consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone ever explained what the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might mean? Can they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding even vaguely consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? Exactly the same problem arises with Indo-European root extensions. It looks to me like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in flicker, flit, flash, flip, and flutter. Paul On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Bruce, > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will > return to this issue when I get back. > > Best, > > Bob > >________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for > that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in > certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being one I think. She > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these > stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed much and > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Thu Sep 1 15:13:21 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:13:21 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <1314883643.95381.YahooMailClassic@web29502.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bruce wrote: > examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) > qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), > pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', > qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', > nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" > I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think > ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they > can't be attributed specific meanings now. Looking at these examples, I'm struck by their similarity to Siouan words with instrumental prefixes. Perhaps it is not the first element that is the original Semitic verb root, but the second. The first element would then be a standard classificatory prefix telling how the verb action took place, with the second element being the verb proper. Thus, *qaT- would be pretty much the same as Dakota ba-, Omaha ma-, Osage pa-, "by cutting", with *-T, *-a, *-S, *-af, *-am and *-d being the truncated remains of various particular verbs that might or might not be done by cutting. Similarly, *nab- would mean "emergently", with *-agh, *-a3, *-aT and *-at representing various other verb roots that might or might not involve coming out. Thanks, Bruce, for a very stimulating post! Rory shokooh Ingham Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 08:27 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you. I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan. The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan? I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic. I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings. I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier. The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense. He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'. Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> ?> ? etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as s?ta ?clear?, ??ta ?smoky?, ??ta ?grey?; s?pa ?black?, ??pa ?dirty?; zi ?yellow?,?i ?tawny?, ?i ?brown?. I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels? Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course. Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean? Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions. It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels. The > > rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable. Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae. This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words. I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that. I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go. I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From indrek.park at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 1 15:38:30 2011 From: indrek.park at GMAIL.COM (Indrek Park) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:30 -0400 Subject: list membership Message-ID: Verifying my subscription. Thanks! Indrek Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Thu Sep 1 15:55:31 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:55:31 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This just shows you how it is possible to take a completely different view of something if you come from a different language background.? Starting from Arabic, I would never have seen it that way, but of course it is not impossible that an earlier stage may have been as Rory suggests. Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, Rory M Larson wrote: From: Rory M Larson Subject: Re: Ablaut et al To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 16:13 Bruce wrote: > examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) > qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), > pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', > qasam 'divide, split'. ?Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', > nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" > I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think > ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they > can't be attributed specific meanings now. Looking at these examples, I'm struck by their similarity to Siouan words with instrumental prefixes. ?Perhaps it is not the first element that is the original Semitic verb root, but the second. ?The first element would then be a standard classificatory prefix telling how the verb action took place, with the second element being the verb proper. ?Thus, *qaT- would be pretty much the same as Dakota ba-, Omaha ma-, Osage pa-, "by cutting", with *-T, *-a, *-S, *-af, *-am and *-d being the truncated remains of various particular verbs that might or might not be done by cutting. ?Similarly, *nab- would mean "emergently", with *-agh, *-a3, *-aT and *-at representing various other verb roots that might or might not involve coming out. Thanks, Bruce, for a very stimulating post! Rory shokooh Ingham Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 08:27 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Dear Paul, Nice to hear from you. ?I don't think I've seen you since 1999 in Saskatchewan. ?The Winnebago examples are rather what I was wondering about i.e. does it point to an earlier monosyllabic, possibly final consonantal, stage for Siouan? ?I realize that this, if it were the case, would only be one earlier stage and wouldn't exclude an even earlier stage which was not necessarily monosyllabic. ?I know one can go on for ever like this, but I am retired and have a lot of time to think and often find myself speculating about linguistic prehistory. For the Semitic case Greenberg gives various groups of verbs with relatable meanings. ?I'm not sure whether the idea originates with him or whether it had been remarked on earlier. ?The early Arab grammarians also remarked on it and referred to it (I think) as 'The Great Derivation', but they exaggerate the case somewhat and it obviously isn't 'derivation' in the usual sense. ?He also suggests that although verbs were originally monosyllabic, the addition of the third consonant made the majority disyllabic and then the remaining monosyllabic ones were reanalyzed as having a geminate final consonant as in qaTT, GaSS, qadd below, or as having a medial semi-vowel realised as a long vowel as in qaal 'to say', zaal 'to cease' etc. examples are (capital letters indicate 'emphatic' or pharyngealized consonants) qaTT 'carve, cut, trim', qaTa' 'cut off', qaSS 'cut, shear, cut off', qaTaf 'pick (flowers), pluck off, cut off', qaTam 'cut off, trim', qadd 'cut lengthwise into strips', qaSur 'be short', qasam 'divide, split'. ?Another group is nabagh 'emerge, appear', naba3 'spring forth, gush out', nabaT 'well out, gush out', nabat 'grow (as of plants)" I'm not sure that anyone has suggested what the final consonants mean and they aren't I think ever regarded as suffixes, but of course they may have originally been that. Generally they can't be attributed specific meanings now. In some ways the above cases are not unlike the Lakota sound symbolism phenomenon where s> ?> ? etc, giving different meanings, which can in some but not all cases be seen to increase intensity, but where the relationship cannot be stated in a consistent way such as s?ta ?clear?, ??ta ?smoky?, ??ta ?grey?; s?pa ?black?, ??pa ?dirty?; zi ?yellow?,?i ?tawny?, ?i ?brown?. ? I suppose the flick, flutter etc group is similar to the slip, slither, slimy, sloshy, slurp, sluttish? group, which I would see as a development out of onomatopeic words. Yours Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA wrote: > From: voorhis at WESTMAN.WAVE.CA > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 4:37 > Bob & Bruce, > > Just going by memory here: I don't have the books at hand > for reference, > but don't a lot of the words where accent would predict a > final > consonant in Dakota according to Shaw actually appear with > the final > consonant in Winnebago: sep 'black', shunk 'dog', phec > 'fire', etc. > Does this correlate with the Dakota words, or does > Winnebago just drop > some or all final vowels? ?Someone with the reference > works handy will > have to check it. > > As for the Semitic stem extensions, you can't just randomly > add extra > consonants to get new roots, of course. ?Has anyone > ever explained what > the assorted suffixes like -f, -m, -r added to qat- might > mean? ?Can > they be identified with other monosyllabic roots yielding > even vaguely > consistent changes in the semantics of the extended roots? > Exactly the > same problem arises with Indo-European root > extensions. ?It looks to me > like the same thing as seeing an original root fl- in > flicker, flit, > flash, flip, and flutter. > > Paul > > > On 8/30/2011 12:42 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > This is indeed an interesting topic. ?There is a > close correlation > > between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan > "consonant-final stems" > > and stems where the other Siouan languages have long > vowels. ?The > > rule seems to have been: ?If the 1st syllable is > long, it is > > accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd > syllable. ?Or, it could be > > phrased in terms of morae. ?This begs the > question whether or not > > Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent > words. ?I'm off this > > afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council > Bluffs and will > > return to this issue when I get back. > > > > Best, > > > > Bob > > > > ________________________________________ From: Siouan > Linguistics > > [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham > > [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Ablaut et al > > > > --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU > wrote: > > > > Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where > you sent your > > article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". > Thanks very much for > > that. ? I found it very interesting and > noticed that you mentioned > > Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many > years ago, there > > being a copy of it in the SOAS library. ?One > thing which interested > > me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional > initial stress in > > certain disyllabic stems, k??a ?'to make' being > one I think. She > > posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form > for these > > stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed > much and > > wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. > It seems like a > > very neat analysis and parallels the argument of > Greenberg about > > Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the > majority such > > as katab 'to write'. ?He suggests that Semitic > stems were originally > > monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the > second syllable > > (or the third consonant depending on how you look at > it) is a later > > addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial > qat- 'cut' > > giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all > realtable to > > the idea of 'cutting'. ?The other advantage is > that it makes Semitic > > stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is > attractive. > > Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I > do like the idea > > of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does > get into > > difficult ground as to how far back you think you can > go. ?I wonder > > whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 1 18:00:19 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:00:19 -0500 Subject: today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aho WagaqthoN, I'm back on campus. See you in class today. Uthixide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 20:21:34 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:21:34 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235DCB29@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *k?:xe *aR?:te *x?:pe CR -ka:xi ?:?i x?:pi HI -ka:xe ?:te x?:pi MA -ka?x LA k??A l?tA x?pA CH g?:?e d?:je x?:we WI g?:x t?:? ??:p OP g?:?e n?:de x?be KS g?:?e ??:?e OS k?:?e c?:ce x?:pe QU k?:?e t?tte BI atut? x?pi OF at?ti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 1 20:27:08 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:27:08 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E2075@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, the formatting of the three-column table in my previous email turned to crap, as usual, but you guys should be able to reconstruct it and get the items in the three proper columns. Sorry, email always seems to do this. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *k?:xe *aR?:te *x?:pe CR -ka:xi ?:?i x?:pi HI -ka:xe ?:te x?:pi MA -ka?x LA k??A l?tA x?pA CH g?:?e d?:je x?:we WI g?:x t?:? ??:p OP g?:?e n?:de x?be KS g?:?e ??:?e OS k?:?e c?:ce x?:pe QU k?:?e t?tte BI atut? x?pi OF at?ti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 1 22:52:18 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:52:18 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E2075@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, With no irons in this particular fire, I'd like to play the Devil's advocate here. I don't really see that the choice between > a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: and > b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. is as stark your argument makes it to be. Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. I understand that in Korean, final stops have no release. In English, we have a slight release, but we don't classify the release as a separate vowel. Perhaps proto-Siouan had more of a release, which operated for any final consonant. In daughter languages, this release might be reinterpreted as a separate syllable or not. If it was interpreted as syllabic, the vowel would be something rather unmarked: most likely -e, possibly -i or -a, and definitely not rounded. If not, it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Maybe even in modern languages like Omaha, these final -e sounds are only somewhat more pronounced consonant releases than we English speakers are used to. Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/01/2011 03:22 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, Paul, et al. I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To me, this means that EITHER: a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these stems INDEPENDENTLY. Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I hope formatting holds here): make marks ripe shallow PS *k?:xe *aR?:te *x?:pe CR -ka:xi ?:?i x?:pi HI -ka:xe ?:te x?:pi MA -ka?x LA k??A l?tA x?pA CH g?:?e d?:je x?:we WI g?:x t?:? ??:p OP g?:?e n?:de x?be KS g?:?e ??:?e OS k?:?e c?:ce x?:pe QU k?:?e t?tte BI atut? x?pi OF at?ti You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR and HI). I personally don't see any way around reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and generalized distribution of virtually identical vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't know. It may be possible, but whether or not this happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist outside of Dakota as far as I know. Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to several. Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to the Semitic part of the discussion. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al Bruce, This is indeed an interesting topic. There is a close correlation between Shaw's (and Carter's, etc.) Dakotan "consonant-final stems" and stems where the other Siouan languages have long vowels. The rule seems to have been: If the 1st syllable is long, it is accented; if it is short, accent the 2nd syllable. Or, it could be phrased in terms of morae. This begs the question whether or not Dakota had final vowels in the initial accent words. I'm off this afternoon on a short trip up to Omaha and Council Bluffs and will return to this issue when I get back. Best, Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Ablaut et al --- On Mon, 29/8/11, rankin at KU.EDU wrote: Bob, This is in reply to your earlier message , where you sent your article on Mississipi Valley Siouan "Ablaut". Thanks very much for that. I found it very interesting and noticed that you mentioned Shaw's work on Dakota phonology, which I read many years ago, there being a copy of it in the SOAS library. One thing which interested me in Shaw was her explanation of the exceptional initial stress in certain disyllabic stems, k??a 'to make' being one I think. She posits an earlier monosyllabic, final consonantal form for these stems such as ka?- . I have never seen this discussed much and wondered what other Siouanists thought about it. It seems like a very neat analysis and parallels the argument of Greenberg about Semitic lexical stems which are now disyllabic in the majority such as katab 'to write'. He suggests that Semitic stems were originally monosyllabic (in fact bisonsonantal) and that the second syllable (or the third consonant depending on how you look at it) is a later addition allowing for lexical expansion, an initial qat- 'cut' giving later qata', qataf, qatam, qasar and others all realtable to the idea of 'cutting'. The other advantage is that it makes Semitic stems look more like Indo-European ones, which is attractive. Without wishing to appear to be talking Nostratic, I do like the idea of original monosyllabic stems, but of course it does get into difficult ground as to how far back you think you can go. I wonder whether it holds up in other Siouan languages. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Fri Sep 2 11:58:49 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:58:49 +0100 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E40AC@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Very enlightening Bob, Thanks Bruce --- On Thu, 1/9/11, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > From: Rankin, Robert L > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 21:27 > Well, the formatting of the > three-column table in my previous email turned to crap, as > usual, but you guys should be able to reconstruct it and get > the items in the three proper columns. Sorry, email > always seems to do this. > > Bob > > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of Rankin, Robert L [rankin at KU.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:21 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Ablaut et al > > Bruce, Paul, et al. > > I believe the question whether or not Proto-Siouan had > consonant-final stems is answered by looking at those same > stems in the rest of the Siouan languages. In each > instance, virtually all of the other Siouan languages > (besides Dakotan and Winnebago) have a stem-final -e, that > is, where Dakota has ablauting -A, Winnebago has zero and > Pat and various other Dakotanists posit CVC stems. To > me, this means that EITHER: > > a) Proto-Siouan did have a final vowel, namely -e, and it > was lost in Winnebago and replaced by -A in Dakota, OR: > > b) Proto-Siouan had consonant-final, CVC, stems, and all of > the other Siouan languages innovated a final -e in these > stems INDEPENDENTLY. > > Given the pretty much unanimously agreed upon subgrouping > of the Siouan language family, it seems to me that (b) is > very unlikely. I included lots of evidence for this in > that paper I sent to several of you/us. For example (I > hope formatting holds here): > > make > marks ripe > shallow > PS *k?:xe > *aR?:te *x?:pe > CR -ka:xi > ?:?i > x?:pi > HI -ka:xe > ?:te > x?:pi > MA -ka?x > LA k??A > l?tA > x?pA > CH g?:?e > d?:je > x?:we > WI g?:x > t?:? > ??:p > OP g?:?e > n?:de > x?be > KS g?:?e > ??:?e > OS k?:?e > c?:ce > x?:pe > QU k?:?e > t?tte > BI > atut? > x?pi > OF > at?ti > > You can see that these 3 verbs that "ablaut" in Dakota all > show evidence of a stem-final -e (or a reflex of -e in CR > and HI). I personally don't see any way around > reconstructing the *-e, given the subgrouping and > generalized distribution of virtually identical > vowels. I might add that final short -e is vulnerable > even today and tends to devoice in languages like Omaha > following certain voiceless consonants, as in: /mikhe/ > 'I am the one who', which is often pronounced [mikhE] with a > whispered e. (I think John Koontz mentioned this to > me; correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, the prevalence > of an underlying final -e is evident in all these stems. > > Now, whether there was a period during which Dakotan > dialects lost final -e and actually had CVC stems, I don't > know. It may be possible, but whether or not this > happened, Dakotan generalized an [-a] in these stems, and > the impetus for this analogical change seems to have been > suffixes that had a suffix-initial a-, such as -ape/-api > 'plural', -as^ 'negative' and others. As far as I can > tell, Dakotan is the only language in the family that > generalized the vowel /-a/ to this degree. So, while > "ablaut" is very real in Dakotan, it is, for the most part, > phonologically conditioned in the rest of Siouan. > > There are isolated examples that muddy the waters like > "ablauting" nouns, e.g., s^uNka 'dog' in Dakota, but this > sort of thing is true of all analogical change. Then > there a few cases like ablauting nasal vowels, aN ~ iN, etc. > where analogy REALLY went to town. These don't exist > outside of Dakota as far as I know. > > Anyhow, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. > :-) If this presentation is confusing, to anyone, I > can send a copy of the original paper, as I already have to > several. > > Sorry, I can't contribute anything intelligent at all to > the Semitic part of the discussion. > > Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 2 15:40:49 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:40:49 +0000 Subject: testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. But your ?schwa-like? epenthetic vowel is [?e] in 12 or 13 languages in several subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e in these cases. You?re just reconstructing *-e as a ?rule? or process instead of as an ?item?. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don?t have any way to distinguish the two equivalent ?solutions?, and the phonological result is the same either way. > . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. The so-called ?consonant finals? in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are in Winnebago. A final ?e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the ?all final ?e in Mandan are epenthetic? solution in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric ?consonant-final stems? because he couldn?t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter and Mixco cleared this up. This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can?t. This trick was toyed with in the ?70s as a means of creating additional ?economy?. But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable structure, it is, in fact, possible to ?predict? the statistically most common vowel syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. > From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn?t get that sort of doubt from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. > When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is just fine. So, in summary, I believe that, (a) whether you reconstruct *e- to Proto-Siouan as a ?rule? or an ?item?, either way you?re reconstructing *-e, and (b) the ?epenthesis? solution creates a lopsided short vowel distribution and an ?economy? (feature saving) that, although technically possible, is not genuine for most phonologists. And if vowel length is properly perceived and recorded, the CVC stems or roots are not needed in order to establish accentual pattern. Only in Dakota, which has apparently lost the length distinction, is it a useful analysis. And this brings me to a basic problem in Siouan linguistics, whether historical or synchronic: Because Dakota was the earliest and best documented Siouan language, it has served as a model for subsequent studies of the other Siouan languages. This is understandable, but it has held the discipline back in certain ways because Dakota alone lost vowel length and has simplified in many ways grammatically. Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 2 15:52:55 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:52:55 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al Message-ID: I thought I'd better resend this with the correct subject line instead of "testing". Bob Rory writes: > Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after a final consonant to clarify that final sound. But your ?schwa-like? epenthetic vowel is [?e] in 12 or 13 languages in several subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e in these cases. You?re just reconstructing *-e as a ?rule? or process instead of as an ?item?. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don?t have any way to distinguish the two equivalent ?solutions?, and the phonological result is the same either way. > . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. The so-called ?consonant finals? in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are in Winnebago. A final ?e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the ?all final ?e in Mandan are epenthetic? solution in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric ?consonant-final stems? because he couldn?t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter and Mixco cleared this up. This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can?t. This trick was toyed with in the ?70s as a means of creating additional ?economy?. But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable structure, it is, in fact, possible to ?predict? the statistically most common vowel syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. > From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn?t get that sort of doubt from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. > When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is just fine. So, in summary, I believe that, (a) whether you reconstruct *e- to Proto-Siouan as a ?rule? or an ?item?, either way you?re reconstructing *-e, and (b) the ?epenthesis? solution creates a lopsided short vowel distribution and an ?economy? (feature saving) that, although technically possible, is not genuine for most phonologists. And if vowel length is properly perceived and recorded, the CVC stems or roots are not needed in order to establish accentual pattern. Only in Dakota, which has apparently lost the length distinction, is it a useful analysis. And this brings me to a basic problem in Siouan linguistics, whether historical or synchronic: Because Dakota was the earliest and best documented Siouan language, it has served as a model for subsequent studies of the other Siouan languages. This is understandable, but it has held the discipline back in certain ways because Dakota alone lost vowel length and has simplified in many ways grammatically. Bob From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Sat Sep 3 02:07:44 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:07:44 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E42A1@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Rory wrote: >> Looking at the data you present, I would be inclined to read these stems as >> phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as operating within a phonological >> system that required a small, meaningless, schwa-like vocalization after >> a final consonant to clarify that final sound. Bob writes: > But your ?schwa-like? epenthetic vowel is [?e] in 12 or 13 languages in several > subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e > in these cases. You?re just reconstructing *-e as a ?rule? or process instead of > as an ?item?. But with a c. 3000 time depth, we don?t have any way to distinguish > the two equivalent ?solutions?, and the phonological result is the same either way. Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. >> . . . it would stay consonant final, as in Winnebago or Mandan. > The so-called ?consonant finals? in Mandan are not real in the sense that they are > in Winnebago. A final ?e in these stems is actually pronounced. They seem to be a > creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the ?all final ?e in Mandan are epenthetic? solution > in his dissertation. He fell into the trap of the Dakotacentric ?consonant-final > stems? because he couldn?t hear the long/short vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter > and Mixco cleared this up. Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. > This is another type of analysis that I distrust. What you and Hollow are saying, > in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels can occur word-finally except the most > common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable reason, short unaccented -e alone can?t. > This trick was toyed with in the ?70s as a means of creating additional ?economy?. > But it does so at the expense of badly skewing the vowel distribution and basic syllable > structure. Theoretically, of course, in ANY language with a requirement of open syllable > structure, it is, in fact, possible to ?predict? the statistically most common vowel > syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony has generally been considered spurious. I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e that we're talking about here? Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? >> From what work I have done with Omaha, I think these final -e sounds receive much >> less stress than previous vowels in the stem, and the speakers sometimes seem a little >> ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced -a or -e. > I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers. Speakers can > normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100 times out of 100. I can see English-dominant > speakers producing schwas and the like. But I have to say I didn?t get that sort of doubt > from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers. I'm certainly open to this possibility, but the question remains whether these are, in fact, phonemic distinctions. >> When I try to get them to choose one, I can usually make them agree that it's -e, >> but perhaps I'm the one imposing something on the language that isn't actually there. > Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think your hearing is > just fine. Thanks. I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 3 19:43:57 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:43:57 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, says "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most common one, (e). That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. > Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. It had me fooled for a long time too, but when Dick Carter did his work on Mandan in about the early '90s, he found length all over the place along with the final -e's that Hollow had left off (for perfectly good accentual reasons if he relied on Dakotan phonology to provide a window into Mandan). > I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e that we're talking about here? I could certainly do that, but the easiest thing to do is to search for them in the Comparative Dictionary MS. If I didn't send you one as an attachment a couple of years back, I apologize. I can get one to you. Just do a search on "PSI[ *" and it will flip from one proto-Siouan reconstruction to the next. You'd get even more using "PMV[ *" (Proto-Mississippi Valley). > Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? Well, I think that would depend on how seriously you take phonology, the status of underlying vs. surface phenomena, the notion of invariance and a host of other factors that have been cussed and discussed in the literature for several decades. For me, at least, the bottom line is "do I NEED to posit exceptional CVC roots in order to explain accent?" And, outside of Dakotan, the answer is apparently "no." It would just cost us an exceptional syllable canon for no reason. Plus, it would skew vowel distribution where, otherwise, we have a number of neat positive generalizations: Certain vowels tend to occur in initial unaccented syllables, certain ones (all of 'em) in accented syllables, and certain ones in post accentual syllables, etc. > I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. > Every linguist needs a "hobby horse", as my colleague Keith Percival has always said, and ours is Dhegiha. Nothing clarifies linguistic theory and washes away the bullshit like lots of real data. bob From saponi360 at YAHOO.COM Sun Sep 4 02:43:26 2011 From: saponi360 at YAHOO.COM (Scott Collins) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:43:26 -0700 Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi Message-ID: I'm attempting to try and find these names in the Tutelo-Saponi language. I'm not certain on the types of pronunciations that would have been translated in different ways back then as compared to today so these are my best guess. ? Pash, Sepoy, Askarin, and Maraskarin (the four clan mothers of the Saponi) Askarin = aksta/vksteh = cheek Pash = pasahe = hoop or mound or perhaps phasu = head Sepoy = -se = (Verb)assertive/quotative mode and or (Noun)definitve article ??+ ospe: = know??????????? Maraskarin = maxo:si: = cloud + aksta/vksteh = cheek ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Scott P. Collins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR Evil Is An Outer Manifestation Of An Inner Struggle ?Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose.? "The greater the denial the greater the awakening." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU Sun Sep 4 17:48:30 2011 From: David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:48:30 -0600 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E40AC@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Bob et al, Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. Second, I proposed then that the ablaut vowel might have been a re-syllabification of a vowel from a following morpheme. I probably treated all three Lakota ablaut vowels alike, but it would work equally well to have /e/ on the verbs replaced by /a/ or /iN/ if the clitic began with one of those vowels. Third, Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM Mon Sep 5 01:12:20 2011 From: jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM (jhobartkyle at GMAIL.COM) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 01:12:20 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E44FE@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry to jump in late on this, but I think Bob is correct in that Dakota is the 'odd man out' here in that Dakota phonology can be analyzed as having epenthesis on some roots. Boas & Deloria were the first (as far as I know) to analyze Dakota as having CVC and (CV)CV roots. It turns out that the CVC roots will surface with an epenthetic vowel but stress falls on the first syllable while bi-syllabic CVCV roots take the stress on the second syllable (as do most Dakota words). The two root types also differ in how they reduplicate: CVC roots reduplicate the entire CVC and then epenthesize a final vowel while CVCV roots reduplicate the final syllable. [sa'pa] "black" comes from /sap/ and reduplicates as [sap-sap-a] [waSte'] "good" comes from /waSte/ and reduplicates as [waSte-Ste] The 'generative' view on this is that stress and reduplication rules apply before epenthesis. This pattern holds up very well for stress and reduplication. Unfortunately, ablaut is not so predictable. Some of the epenthetic vowels DO ablaut but not all of them and some of the non-epenthetic vowels DO ablaut but not all of them. The fact that the other Siouan languages do not have these CVC type roots shows that Dakota has done a bit of reanalysis on their underlying forms. John Kyle On , "Rankin, Robert L" wrote: > > Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your > previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem > unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your > thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and > especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a > suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away > because it is not really there at all. > But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern > 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to > put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to > reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, > says "all 7 other vowels (iaou iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented > word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most > common one, (e). That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's > the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as > Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic > vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and > others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer > justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly > than before. > > Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected on Mandan. > It had me fooled for a long time too, but when Dick Carter did his work > on Mandan in about the early '90s, he found length all over the place > along with the final -e's that Hollow had left off (for perfectly good > accentual reasons if he relied on Dakotan phonology to provide a window > into Mandan). > > I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples of widespread old > Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels other than -e > that we're talking about here? > I could certainly do that, but the easiest thing to do is to search for > them in the Comparative Dictionary MS. If I didn't send you one as an > attachment a couple of years back, I apologize. I can get one to you. > Just do a search on "PSI[ *" and it will flip from one proto-Siouan > reconstruction to the next. You'd get even more using "PMV[ *" > (Proto-Mississippi Valley). > > Also, why would suggesting that _some_ words of the form CVCe are > underlyingly CVC imply that _all_ words of that form necessarily are? > Well, I think that would depend on how seriously you take phonology, the > status of underlying vs. surface phenomena, the notion of invariance and > a host of other factors that have been cussed and discussed in the > literature for several decades. For me, at least, the bottom line is "do > I NEED to posit exceptional CVC roots in order to explain accent?" And, > outside of Dakotan, the answer is apparently "no." It would just cost us > an exceptional syllable canon for no reason. Plus, it would skew vowel > distribution where, otherwise, we have a number of neat positive > generalizations: Certain vowels tend to occur in initial unaccented > syllables, certain ones (all of 'em) in accented syllables, and certain > ones in post accentual syllables, etc. > > I think my hearing is reasonably good too. But my hearing sometimes > interprets the sound as -a when they say it spontaneously, though I can > often get them to admit that it's -e when I force them to choose. And I > know that much of my foundational knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from > linguists, not directly from the speakers. Also, that a good deal of what > I thought I knew from the former has been convincingly challenged, > corrected, or greatly augmented by the latter. > > Every linguist needs a "hobby horse", as my colleague Keith Percival > has always said, and ours is Dhegiha. Nothing clarifies linguistic theory > and washes away the bullshit like lots of real data. > bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Reinhard.Tognella at AG.CH Mon Sep 5 10:33:32 2011 From: Reinhard.Tognella at AG.CH (Tognella Reinhard JBOG) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:33:32 +0200 Subject: AW: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I received your message, too. Thank you. Though I haven't been able to contribute so far (I am not a linguist, but court clerk interested in language typology and in the native languages of North America in general, but specifically in the languages of the Great Plains [therefore Siouan] - and Yukatek Maya) I enjoy the discussions on this list about those fascinating languages very much. So I would be happy to continue as a user of the SiouanList. Regards from Switzerland Reinhard ________________________________ Von: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] Im Auftrag von Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2011 20:28 An: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Betreff: list relocation notification Aloha all SiouanList users, At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. Hello! This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages. Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on. Thanks! Can this person contact the new UNL list? If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu I understand that the list archives still function as before. Give me your feedback, please. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 ----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 08/29/11 12:47 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject testing THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Mon Sep 5 13:56:35 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:56:35 -0500 Subject: AW: list relocation notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reinhard: Be assured that not everyone is a degreed professional linguist on this list, such as I. It includes degreed/ non-degreed tribal community persons who have an interest in tribal languages, therefore you are well suited as a list member. We all Thank Mark for taking the effort to recreate a new listing, which is easy to join by simply sending him an Email. The former list process effectively excluded those interested, although in fairness, it was not intentionally meant to do so. Please note, that David Kaufman and I have a particular interest in Kaqchikel Maya of Guatemala, one of the 22 Mayan Languages. On his FaceBook page, he recently posted a a very nice link to a Yukat?c Maya website. It begins with an Anglo American speaking in Yukat?c Mayan, and other encouraging videos of Americans (perhaps others) who have made the effort to learn Yukat?c, perhaps in a background interest with the Mayan Calendar. Perhaps, Dave will send this link via the list here, to save me the hassle of looking it up in FB. Best, Jimm Goodtracks From: Tognella Reinhard JBOG Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 5:33 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: AW: list relocation notification I received your message, too. Thank you. Though I haven't been able to contribute so far (I am not a linguist, but court clerk interested in language typology and in the native languages of North America in general, but specifically in the languages of the Great Plains [therefore Siouan] - and Yukatek Maya) I enjoy the discussions on this list about those fascinating languages very much. So I would be happy to continue as a user of the SiouanList. Regards from Switzerland Reinhard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Von: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] Im Auftrag von Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2011 20:28 An: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Betreff: list relocation notification Aloha all SiouanList users, At the recent Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference in White Cloud, KS, a discussion about the SiouanList took place. The consensus thinking is that the current hosting at Colorado.edu could be re-invigorated by moving to another institution. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is now the home of the SiouanList. It can be accessed at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I am reportedly the list owner. Since I barely know how to find the light switch in my office... this should be interesting. For now, in order to verify list members, please respond to the new list at siouan at listserve.unl.edu I received the following message that illustrates the problem of addresses without a real person's name attached. Hello! This account is no longer being used and will not be checked for messages. Please use my new email address - wiyakawi at hughes.net from now on. Thanks! Can this person contact the new UNL list? If you know of anyone else wanting access to the list please forward them to me at mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu I understand that the list archives still function as before. Give me your feedback, please. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 ----- Forwarded by Mark J Awakuni-Swetland/UNLAS/UNL/UNEBR on 08/29/11 12:48 PM ----- Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 08/29/11 12:47 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject testing THIS IS A TEST MESSAGE ON THE UPCOMING UNL-BASED SIOUANLIST Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:17:36 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:17:36 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. Having CVC stems in Dakota is a side effect of the loss of vowel length in that language. To the extent that accent is predictable, it is predictable on initial syllable long vowels. These are precisely the vowels in our ?CVC? roots. Thus Pat was using a secondary development from long Vs as an environment for accent. The two developments are closely related, but the long Vs were primary, and CVC roots were a consequence in Dakota right along with initial syll. accent. > I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. I think the normal reflex of final short *-e in Biloxi is /i/, but there are some problems, and, as usual, they relate to Dorsey?s (and Gatschet?s) transcription abilities. These two (who did all the early research on Biloxi) wrote both final ?i and final ?e. But Mary Haas, in her ?Last Words of Biloxi? article, points out that there are three phonetic front vowels in Biloxi: [i], [e] and [?]. The mid one, [e] is an allophone of /i/ word-finally (as it is in nearby Muskogean languages). The real Biloxi phoneme /e/ is phonetically [?], not [e]. But unfortunately Dorsey and, earlier, Gatschet, didn?t always distinguish the phoneme /e/ from the [e] allophone of /i/. So reflexes get lumped in the 19th century transcriptions. But there is no separate, ablauting, *-i. > Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Actually, there are three Proto-Siouan negative morphemes, one usually prefixed, the other two suffixed or enclitic. Dakota ??ni is a compound of two of them. The sets are: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *a?i *r? CR HI MA -(a)xi -r?-x DA -?? ?-ni CH ?-gu-?? ?- -?? WI ?-g??-n? ?- -n? OP -a?i KS -a?i OS -a?i QU -a?i BI ku...ni a?i -ni OF ki?ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne The prefix *ku- is normally found in conjunction with the suffix *-r? [-ni]. Jiwere and Winnebago conveniently combine all three in one enclitic. The Biloxi lexeme a?i is translated ?Oh no!?. The Dakota cognate for my Neg II, above, is probably the dubitative ???, but I can?t account for nasalization there. I do not know whether Dakotan dialects are unanimous in the forms of these (as one would expect in the case of Sound Change) or whether they disagree a bit as we might expect if they had been subject to borrowing or analogical (Labovian) change. > Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). The ordinary sound change for final short *-e in Crow seems to be ?i, but I can?t say much more. If I make room for Crow in my head, I?ll have to forget something else that?s already there. I should add that there are one or two kinds of ?ablaut? that defy explanation in terms of vowel cluster (V1+V2) collapse. These are the use of ?a in reduplicanda and the use of ?a preceding positional continuative auxiliaries (i.e., the use of ?ta ?potential? replacing ?te in Dhegiha). There are no errant *a vowels to provide environments in these cases; they are simply morphological reanalyses, i.e., true Ablaut. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [David.Rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 12:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: a few details about ablaut Hi, Bob et al, Thanks very much for all the discussion of ablaut. I have always liked Pat Shaw's analysis of consonant-final stems because it explains the stress so neatly, and if I remember right, it also correlates with some of the reduplication patterns. I'm away from my resources right now, but I think I recall that when I did that paper on ablaut for the second or third Siouan conference eons ago (published in Anpa'o), I found some /i/ vowels in one of the Southeastern languages. Needs to be verified. Second, I proposed then that the ablaut vowel might have been a re-syllabification of a vowel from a following morpheme. I probably treated all three Lakota ablaut vowels alike, but it would work equally well to have /e/ on the verbs replaced by /a/ or /iN/ if the clitic began with one of those vowels. Third, Bob says the negative morpheme is *-as^, but in Lakota and Dakota the negative takes the -e form of the ablaut vowel. Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:26:49 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:26:49 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E4901@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? Is this any better? Bob neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *a?i *r? CR HI MA -(a)xi -r?-x DA -?? ?-ni CH ?-gu-?? ?- -?? WI ?-g??-n? ?- -n? OP -a?i KS -a?i OS -a?i QU -a?i BI ku...ni a?i -ni OF ki?ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 19:31:56 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 19:31:56 +0000 Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi In-Reply-To: <1315104206.89368.YahooMailClassic@web83503.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: These are a mystery to me. My only observation is the obvious one that "Maraskarin" looks like a compound with "Askarin". Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Scott Collins [saponi360 at YAHOO.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Questions On Tutelo-Saponi I'm attempting to try and find these names in the Tutelo-Saponi language. I'm not certain on the types of pronunciations that would have been translated in different ways back then as compared to today so these are my best guess. Pash, Sepoy, Askarin, and Maraskarin (the four clan mothers of the Saponi) Askarin = aksta/vksteh = cheek Pash = pasahe = hoop or mound or perhaps phasu = head Sepoy = -se = (Verb)assertive/quotative mode and or (Noun)definitve article + ospe: = know Maraskarin = maxo:si: = cloud + aksta/vksteh = cheek Scott P. Collins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR Evil Is An Outer Manifestation Of An Inner Struggle ?Men and women become accomplices to those evils they fail to oppose.? "The greater the denial the greater the awakening." From boris at TERRACOM.NET Mon Sep 5 22:22:17 2011 From: boris at TERRACOM.NET (Alan Knutson) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:22:17 -0500 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E492B@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *as(i *ri; CR HI MA -(a)xi -ri;-x DA -s(i; s(-ni CH s(-gu-?i; s(- -?i; WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; OP -az(i KS -az(i OS -az(i QU -az(i BI ku...ni ac(i -ni OF ki...ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? > Is this any better? Bob > > > neg. I neg. II neg. III > > PSi *ku *as(i *ri; > CR > HI > MA -(a)xi -ri;-x > DA -s(i; s(-ni > CH s(-gu-?i; s(- -?i; > WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; > OP -az(i > KS -az(i > OS -az(i > QU -az(i > BI ku...ni ac(i -ni > OF ki...ni -ni > TU ku...ne -ne > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 5 22:28:38 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (rankin at KU.EDU) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 22:28:38 +0000 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <4E654B99.8080701@terracom.net> Message-ID: Good idea. Ill try it. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Alan Knutson Sender: Siouan Linguistics Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:22:17 To: Reply-To: Siouan Linguistics Subject: Re: a few details about ablaut Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *as(i *ri; CR HI MA -(a)xi -ri;-x DA -s(i; s(-ni CH s(-gu-?i; s(- -?i; WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; OP -az(i KS -az(i OS -az(i QU -az(i BI ku...ni ac(i -ni OF ki...ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? > Is this any better? Bob > > > neg. I neg. II neg. III > > PSi *ku *as(i *ri; > CR > HI > MA -(a)xi -ri;-x > DA -s(i; s(-ni > CH s(-gu-?i; s(- -?i; > WI s(-gu;?-ni; s(- -ni; > OP -az(i > KS -az(i > OS -az(i > QU -az(i > BI ku...ni ac(i -ni > OF ki...ni -ni > TU ku...ne -ne > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Sep 6 17:28:27 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:28:27 -0500 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Message-ID: Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mixed-blood names 6-2011.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 40960 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Tue Sep 6 17:31:27 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:31:27 -0500 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <4E654B99.8080701@terracom.net> Message-ID: Aloha Bob and Alan, Good News! It looks like we can also send attachments (at least as .DOC-type files) on the UNL SIOUAN list. Mark Awakuni-Swetland Alan Knutson Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/05/11 05:23 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: a few details about ablaut Perhaps cut and paste from a spread sheet: neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *a?i *r? CR HI MA -(a)xi -r?-x DA -?? ?-ni CH ?-gu-?? ?- -?? WI ?-g??-n? ?- -n? OP -a?i KS -a?i OS -a?i QU -a?i BI ku...ni a?i -ni OF ki?ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne Alan K. On 9/5/2011 2:26 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: Sorry, I've never been able to keep tablular formatting in email. Does anybody know a way? Is this any better? Bob neg. I neg. II neg. III PSi *ku *a?i *r? CR HI MA -(a)xi -r?-x DA -?? ?-ni CH ?-gu-?? ?- -?? WI ?-g??-n? ?- -n? OP -a?i KS -a?i OS -a?i QU -a?i BI ku...ni a?i -ni OF ki?ni -ni TU ku...ne -ne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanvalin at BUFFALO.EDU Tue Sep 6 17:32:08 2011 From: vanvalin at BUFFALO.EDU (Robert Van Valin Jr) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:32:08 -0400 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No problem with the attachment RVV On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Tue Sep 6 17:57:51 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:57:51 +0100 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works for me, Mark! Thanks Anthony >>> Mark J Awakuni-Swetland 06/09/2011 18:28 >>> Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. ? Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2007 and 2010 ? Top in the North West for overall student satisfaction (Sunday Times University Guide 2011) ? Top Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010, all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) ? Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' ? Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From lcumberl at INDIANA.EDU Tue Sep 6 18:31:25 2011 From: lcumberl at INDIANA.EDU (Cumberland, Linda A) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:31:25 -0400 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works for me, too. Maybe you only need to hear from anyone for whom it doesn't work? That would reduce the load on your (and our) inbox. -Linda Quoting Mark J Awakuni-Swetland : > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Tue Sep 6 18:52:48 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:52:48 -0500 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, the attachment opened for me, although the Native names and meanings were against a background of sky blue. I think the idea of being able to do an attachments will be of great assistance, such as when Bob was trying to create his list yesterday. jgt From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:28 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Wed Sep 7 02:47:19 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:47:19 -0600 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This works. Thanks, Mary On 06/09/2011 11:28 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha all, > I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently > configured. > I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. > Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. > Mark > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pustetrm at YAHOO.COM Wed Sep 7 05:57:07 2011 From: pustetrm at YAHOO.COM (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:57:07 -0700 Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It works just fine, Mark. Regina ________________________________ From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:28 AM Subject: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgraczyk at AOL.COM Wed Sep 7 20:09:34 2011 From: rgraczyk at AOL.COM (rgraczyk at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:09:34 -0400 Subject: a few details about ablaut In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E4901@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: > Fourth, Randy's Crow grammar describes some stem ablaut that looks like a really distorted version of what we have in the Central Siouan languages, viz. some stems ablaut and some don't, and those that do use /-a/ before plurals and imperatives (again, this is from memory -- the book is not handy right now). There are some verb stems ending in -ii and -ee that ablaut, and others that don't. Those that ablaut have -aa before the plural (uu) and before morphemes beginning in a-. There don't appear to be any conditioning factors that would explain this. >The ordinary sound change for final short *-e in Crow seems to be ?i, but I can?t say much more. If I make room for Crow in my head, I?ll have to forget something else that?s already there. Scrolling through the CSD, it looks like -i is the most common reflex in Crow of PSI*-e. Randy From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 8 03:17:01 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:17:01 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E44FE@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really there at all. > > But it IS there in about 11 or 12 languages spread all over the eastern 2/3 of the continent, that's my point. So, once again, EITHER we have to put it there in Proto-Siouan underlying phonology, OR we have to reconstruct a phonological rule in Proto-Siouan that, in effect, says "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally, but we're going to use this rule to "predict" the most common one, (e). It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. Rather, it would allow 9 possible CVC- patterns, where the accent is on the V: CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCiN, CVCaN and CVCuN as well as CVC. In this case, CVC and CVCe might have collapsed together at an early time, either before Siouan split, or separately in the various branches. From that point on, there would be no contradiction between this model and yours. I think this model has three advantages: 1. Ablaut in the non-Dakotan languages is explained naturally by your model of suffixes with initial a-. If the final -e in Siouan verb roots is phonemic, then we have to do some rationalizing about relative "weakness" of vowels to tell why -e goes away before the a- in CVCe roots, while the other 7 vowels are preserved. But if most CVCe roots are underlyingly CVC, then the -e is not there in the first place phonemically and the speakers would therefore never put it there if another vowel was suffixed to the final C. 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. 3. We do not have to suppose that proto-Dakotan roots had to go from CVCe to CVC to CVCa, first losing a final vowel, and then gaining a new one. The Dakotan -a ending would simply be that branch's phonemic reinterpretation of the unmarked vocal release after CVC, in contrast with the -e or -i reinterpretation possibly chosen by other Siouan languages. There would only be one step, from CVC to CVCa, with little phonetic difference between the two. > That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. I'm not familiar enough with the accent and vowel length discussion to argue on this. My dispute is with the EITHER-OR dichotomy you propound above, which I feel invalidly excludes a very reasonable possibility in the middle. I grant that your overall view of the CVC question, grounded on other considerations, may be correct. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Marlene.Hilzensauer at AAU.AT Thu Sep 8 06:50:18 2011 From: Marlene.Hilzensauer at AAU.AT (Marlene Hilzensauer) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:50:18 +0200 Subject: Antw: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aloha, Mark, works fine for me, thanks! Marlene >>> Mark J Awakuni-Swetland 06.09.2011 19:28 >>> Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 9 02:53:50 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 02:53:50 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? > This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. > Rather, it would allow 9 possible CVC- patterns, where the accent is on the V: CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCiN, CVCaN and CVCuN as well as CVC. In this case, CVC and CVCe might have collapsed together at an early time, either before Siouan split, or separately in the various branches. From that point on, there would be no contradiction between this model and yours. > I think this model has three advantages: > 1. Ablaut in the non-Dakotan languages is explained naturally by your model of suffixes with initial a-. If the final -e in Siouan verb roots is phonemic, then we have to do some rationalizing about relative "weakness" of vowels to tell why -e goes away before the a- in CVCe roots, while the other 7 vowels are preserved. But if most CVCe roots are underlyingly CVC, then the -e is not there in the first place phonemically and the speakers would therefore never put it there if another vowel was suffixed to the final C. It's way more complicated than that. It isn't just unaccented -e. Vowel sequences generally simply aren't usually permitted. Post-accentually, the most common outcome is V1+V2 > V2[+long], but there are also glide epenthesis rules where V1+V2 > V1 r V2 (where r has various reflexes in different langs.) Normally this is dh in Omaha. If V1 or V2 is long, it's even more complex. > 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. > 3. We do not have to suppose that proto-Dakotan roots had to go from CVCe to CVC to CVCa, first losing a final vowel, and then gaining a new one. The Dakotan -a ending would simply be that branch's phonemic reinterpretation of the unmarked vocal release after CVC, in contrast with the -e or -i reinterpretation possibly chosen by other Siouan languages. There would only be one step, from CVC to CVCa, with little phonetic difference between the two. What I'm saying, I think, is that you're just hedging on the phonemic principle by renaming -e "the unmarked vocal release". This is merely renaming something that is actually there in all the languages something that isn't there in any of them. It violates simplicity and creates an artificial minority syllable pattern where most Siouan languages don't have one. Most require open syllables. bob > That would go against 150 years of phonology UNLESS it's the only way to predict accent, in which case one might argue for it as Pat Shaw, Dick Carter and others have. But since the status of phonemic vowel length has been clarified (by Bruce Hays and by yours truly and others), we can see that the highly exceptional CVC roots are no longer justified except in Dakotan. I think that sums up my view more compactly than before. I'm not familiar enough with the accent and vowel length discussion to argue on this. My dispute is with the EITHER-OR dichotomy you propound above, which I feel invalidly excludes a very reasonable possibility in the middle. I grant that your overall view of the CVC question, grounded on other considerations, may be correct. Rory From kdshea at AOL.COM Fri Sep 9 03:49:58 2011 From: kdshea at AOL.COM (kdshea at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:49:58 -0400 Subject: response to test Message-ID: Thank-you for taking on the job of list monitor and host, Mark. I am a subscriber to the list using my old e-mail address at AOL. Would you update my address to kathleendshea at gmail.com for me or tell me how to do that myself? Thanks! Kathy Shea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Fri Sep 9 16:59:58 2011 From: linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:59:58 -0700 Subject: Programmes for translating curriculum Message-ID: Hello: My teammates on a language-documentation project in Panama have added a curriculum-translation component to our project, funded by the Panamanian Ministry of Education (yay!) and partially by our grant. They are familiar with using Toolbox for creating both glosses and free translations from their language to Spanish, but are looking now for a programme more appropriate for translating children's school curricular materials from Spanish to their language (which of course does not involve glosses). Most of the bilingual publications that have been produced so far have been done with Microsoft Publisher, but that's complicated to learn and quite expensive. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Sep 10 02:42:01 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:42:01 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E504F@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. > What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? I don't think we're in disagreement at this point in terms of Occam's razor. If our models are "precisely tantamount" to each other, then mine has no extra step. We are both in agreement that there was a vocalic sound following the final consonant of CVC-E type verb roots, and that the phonetic quality of that vocalic sound was closer to [e] than to any of the other four Latin vowel sounds. The question is whether the speakers at the time ablaut developed in Siouan recognized that sound as phonemic /e/, and hence as a separate contrastive sound constituent of the root, as you advocate, or whether that sound was simply a necessary artifact of ending a word on a consonant, and hence non-phonemic, as I am suggesting. >> This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. > Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. We're both building a pre-final E phonology here, and if mine is slightly more elaborate than yours it is justified by the fact that you are claiming certainty for your model by excluding alternatives, where I only need to show a reasonable alternative that you cannot exclude. Specifically, you are making the strong claim that a CVC model for verbs of your CVCe type is untenable because it would necessarily exclude primary CVCe roots while allowing all 7 other vowels in final position in CVCv forms. I proposed the obvious possibility that both CVC and CVCe roots existed primarily, but collapsed together at an early stage because they were rather similar phonetically. The CVC roots were much more common, and the CVCe roots were perhaps reanalyzed morphologically as CVC. With this very reasonable adjustment to the CVC model, your argument against it as excluding primary final -e loses all force. >> 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. > But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. If the final vowel of CVCv roots is phonemic, we should expect it to contrast frequently so as to distinguish words. The argument about the final vowel above presumes that it does. A couple of messages ago, I asked you to offer a few examples to help guide our argument. You suggested instead that I consult the CSD PDF file and search on "PSI[ *", which moves me along one word at a time. (Yes, in fact you did share it with me, back in 2006. It's a wonderful resource. Thank you very much!) I have been doing this for a while, and admittedly have not yet got far through the file. I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So my question is whether we even have any irreducible active verb roots in common Siouan of form CVCv where final unaccented v is other than -e? If so, can we roll a few out on the table? If not, are we left with only CV, CvCV and CVC(e) patterns? If the latter is the case, then the whole argument above about the final vowels possible for primary CVCv roots becomes moot. > John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. I'm open to that possibility too, and have generally speculated in John's direction in the past. The defense of CVC that I'm currently throwing up is largely motivated by trying to make your suffixed-particle-with-initial-a model work more smoothly in my head. Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cpratt at STINTERNET.NET Fri Sep 9 22:28:07 2011 From: cpratt at STINTERNET.NET (Cameron J. Pratt) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:28:07 -0500 Subject: Fw: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST Message-ID: Aho! Mark it has been working for me as well. Cameron Pratt ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary C Marino To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:47 PM Subject: Re: testing attachment capabilities for the SIOUAN LIST This works. Thanks, Mary On 06/09/2011 11:28 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha all, I'm curious if we can use attachments on the list as currently configured. I'll know the answer if/when this gets posted to by own in-box. Sadly, you all will have to suffer through this test, too. Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 13 20:45:10 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:45:10 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. No, not ?orthographic?, phonological. I think this is maybe where our greatest disagreement lies. There is an actual literature in linguistics that discusses all of these questions going back 125+ years. Modern phonology begins with ??erba, Kruszewski, de Saussure and others in the 19th century, and treatment of these issues like faithfulness, invariance, pattern congruity, generality, degree of abstraction, etc. go way back and have been pondered for a long time by linguists working with a variety of languages. If you look upon this as a simple matter of orthography for a couple of Mississippi Valley Siouan languages, you?ll waste your time trying to ?invent? phonology while just ?thinking about? one particular problem. It seems to me that saying that the sound [e] everywhere but at the ends of words is the phoneme /e/, but word-finally it is just a ?piece? of an allophone of the previous consonant phoneme ? which is what you?re saying here ? is going to be in big trouble no matter what phonological theory you adopt. We can make a case for epenthesis (of /e/ or /a/, not some vague burp) in Dakota where vowel length has been lost, but it lacks phonological motivation everywhere else. We are actually responsible for hewing to good phonological practice in Siouan linguistics. I used to spend entire semesters trying to get that across. > But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. That?s where ?respect for the data? in those cognate sets comes in (all the ?e up and down the line). The phoneme correspondences show a reconstructible open syllable language. Period. Pattern congruity dictates a simple structural conclusion unless there is strong motivation that militates for some additional consideration. Only in Dakotan is such a factor found. From a historical perspective that motivation disappears when we restore long vowels. > I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So you started with the entire vocabulary but quickly found that virtually any vowel can occur in final position unaccented. So you restricted your search to verbs. But there were so many pesky stative verbs ending in ?ka/-ga, which seems to be a morpheme. The stative roots include lots like ?? ?little?, ht? ?big?, etc. So now it?s just active verbs? Add g????a ?want?, another bimorphemic stem. We?re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. You?re just ignoring that fact, assigning ?morpheme boundaries? wherever you encounter problems. You believe (or hope) that tt???? is bimorphemic. OK, let?s say it?s possible -- if it is conjugated 1s tt?bl?, 2s tt??n? (or tt?hn?, whatever), but in Kansa it?s a unit: att?y?, yatt?y?, and there?s no reason to believe that tt? is ?ground?. Some people used to think that m???? ?walk? was ?earth-move? until we discovered m? ?go? in Catawba. That?s the kind of comical etymologizing philosophers used to do in the Middle Ages: vulpe ?fox? must be vol-ere ?to fly? plus pe-dem- ?foot?, because the fox is fleet of foot. A parallel example: In Spanish all the verbs end in ?r. That may make it a morpheme, but it doesn?t make it epenthetic, does it? As we discussed last time, the ?e in Siouan active verbs might even be a morpheme, but if it is, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis. I think we just need to take the nouns, verbs and everything else at face value. The phonology of syllable structure is largely autonomous. For example, morpheme boundaries don?t play a role in syllable structure in the cases in which there?s a boundary between a consonant and /h/ or /?/. M?kh? syllabifies as /m?-k??/ even though morphemically it is m-?k-he, and -he is a (conjugated) auxiliary. And wan??p?? syllabifies /wa-n?-p??/ even though -?? is the ?wear? morpheme. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory M Larson [rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:42 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Ablaut et al >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. But the dichotomy does not hold if we assume that proto-Siouan words could end in phonemic consonants characterized by an unmarked vocal release. If such a release were reinterpreted as a phonemic vowel by later speakers or their linguists, the vowel chosen would most likely be -e, and next most likely -i or -a. It would probably not be o, u, iN, aN or uN, because those sounds are marked, either by rounding or by nasalization. The pattern we see in your table is mostly -e, some -i, and possibly one case of -a, which squares well with that expectation. > What I'm saying is that this is precisely tantamount to reconstructing *-e, which is exactly what I do. Trying to push -e back to a "consonant characterized by an unmarked vocal release" merely adds an unnecessary, and unjustified, step. Why not use Occam's razor and reconstruct what is actually there? I don't think we're in disagreement at this point in terms of Occam's razor. If our models are "precisely tantamount" to each other, then mine has no extra step. We are both in agreement that there was a vocalic sound following the final consonant of CVC-E type verb roots, and that the phonetic quality of that vocalic sound was closer to [e] than to any of the other four Latin vowel sounds. The question is whether the speakers at the time ablaut developed in Siouan recognized that sound as phonemic /e/, and hence as a separate contrastive sound constituent of the root, as you advocate, or whether that sound was simply a necessary artifact of ending a word on a consonant, and hence non-phonemic, as I am suggesting. >> This model does not imply that "all 7 other vowels (i a o u iN, aN, uN) can occur unaccented word-finally", but that "the most common one, (e)" cannot. > Sure it does. ALL verbs in what I reconstruct as CVCe and you reconstruct as CVC behave the same phonologically. It is not the case that some of them "ablaut" while others don't. So there's no reason to say that you can have both CVCe and CVC. I think you're building an elaborate "pre-final E" phonology where there's no need. We're both building a pre-final E phonology here, and if mine is slightly more elaborate than yours it is justified by the fact that you are claiming certainty for your model by excluding alternatives, where I only need to show a reasonable alternative that you cannot exclude. Specifically, you are making the strong claim that a CVC model for verbs of your CVCe type is untenable because it would necessarily exclude primary CVCe roots while allowing all 7 other vowels in final position in CVCv forms. I proposed the obvious possibility that both CVC and CVCe roots existed primarily, but collapsed together at an early stage because they were rather similar phonetically. The CVC roots were much more common, and the CVCe roots were perhaps reanalyzed morphologically as CVC. With this very reasonable adjustment to the CVC model, your argument against it as excluding primary final -e loses all force. >> 2. It explains why -e is, I believe, not only the most common, but overwhelmingly the most common, ending we find, at least on active verb roots. To the CVCe roots would be added all the presumably numerous CVC roots as well. > But we don't need both CVCe and CVC roots, because there is no difference in behavior to motivate them. I do take your point that -e is the most common -V by far. However, SOME vowel has to predominate statistically. If the final vowel of CVCv roots is phonemic, we should expect it to contrast frequently so as to distinguish words. The argument about the final vowel above presumes that it does. A couple of messages ago, I asked you to offer a few examples to help guide our argument. You suggested instead that I consult the CSD PDF file and search on "PSI[ *", which moves me along one word at a time. (Yes, in fact you did share it with me, back in 2006. It's a wonderful resource. Thank you very much!) I have been doing this for a while, and admittedly have not yet got far through the file. I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. So my question is whether we even have any irreducible active verb roots in common Siouan of form CVCv where final unaccented v is other than -e? If so, can we roll a few out on the table? If not, are we left with only CV, CvCV and CVC(e) patterns? If the latter is the case, then the whole argument above about the final vowels possible for primary CVCv roots becomes moot. > John Koontz and I discussed this quite a bit. I think he believes that -e and -a have/had morphemic status that explains their prevalence. I have tended to resist that analysis since I don't see the semantic relationship. I'm open to that possibility too, and have generally speculated in John's direction in the past. The defense of CVC that I'm currently throwing up is largely motivated by trying to make your suffixed-particle-with-initial-a model work more smoothly in my head. Rory From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Wed Sep 14 13:11:26 2011 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:11:26 -0500 Subject: MEMEBERS LIST Message-ID: Sky: In my last EM to you, I mentioned that you should send an Em to the Siouan List above to be included on mailings, information & discussions on Siouan Languages. While the group is composed of professional linguists, it is open to community members as well and it can be both confusing (to the uninitiated) as well as very informative, and interesting. Meanwhile, Still in the running to beat the grant deadline. I awoke this morn to find all my work from yesterday... Lost! Mild Frustration is my response to this opportunity to test my mind as to what I was saying and how I said it in the grant and budget justifications edits. Jimm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 15 04:15:58 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:15:58 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235E5721@EXCH10-MBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: >> It is there at least in the orthographic renditions that linguists have built for these languages, and quite possibly in the heads of their speakers as well. > No, not ?orthographic?, phonological. I think this is maybe where our greatest disagreement lies. Yes, I think we have ended up with this sort of disagreement before. From my point of view, you tend to confuse phonology with orthography. Your approach is more letter-oriented, which leads to EITHER...OR dichotomies like the one that started this discussion. I am more inclined to pronounce the words to myself, paying attention to the mechanics of how they are made and how these mechanics would evolve from one stage to another. This leads me to consider intermediate possibilities between the EITHER and the OR. We both are interested in the evolution of these languages, but it seems to me that your view of phonological evolution is somewhat more punctuational than mine. >> I am looking for active verb roots of CVCv type where v is something other than -e. I don't think I've found any yet. That leaves -e predominating statistically at somewhere close to 100%. Certainly there are many nouns, and five out of ten of the basic numbers in Omaha, that have unaccented final vowels with phonemic values that contrast with -e. Many stative verbs have unaccented final -a, at least in attributive usage. Among active verbs, I can think offhand of ttaNriN, 'run', with accent on the first syllable, but this is surely a compound of ttaN 'ground' + riN 'move', i.e. CV+CV, not CVCv. We also have bexiN, 'sweep', with accent on the first syllable, but I suspect this is underlyingly ba-i-xiN, with three separate morphemes. > So you started with the entire vocabulary but quickly found that virtually any vowel can occur in final position unaccented. So you restricted your search to verbs. But there were so many pesky stative verbs ending in ?ka/-ga, which seems to be a morpheme. The stative roots include lots like ?? ?little?, ht? ?big?, etc. So now it?s just active verbs? Add g????a ?want?, another bimorphemic stem. Yes, I believe it is active verbs of CVCv type that we have been discussing here, as a tangent from your post on ablaut that raised the question of possible CVC roots in that context. In a previous message, I forgot to include "active verb" in the specification list, and was kicking myself shortly after pressing the "Send" button. I apologize for confusing the issue. My question is: Do we have monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv type in Proto-Siouan where v is a vowel other than -e? If so, is there a significant number of them, and what are some examples? As you point out, the stative verbs *??-ka and *ht?-ka and the active verb *g???-?a would not count because they are not monomorphemic. > We?re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. You?re just ignoring that fact, assigning ?morpheme boundaries? wherever you encounter problems. I'm not entirely following what you're saying in these sentences. If your comments about syllable structure are in advocacy of Siouan being syllabic and requiring every syllable to end in a vowel, I'm perfectly happy to accept that. That would be a very good reason to require any word that is underlyingly CVC to add a non-contrastive vocalization at the end of it if it is not followed by a suffix that starts with a vowel. Alternatively, perhaps all the CVCe verbs were originally CVCv, where v varied equitably over all the vowels. Then the final v was schwa'ed out, with consequent collapses in distinctiveness, and Siouan was left with CVCe in place of them all. In that case, there was always a vowel there, but at the end of the process the CVC was the sole part that specified semantic value. In this case too, starting from the other direction, the exact pronunciation of the final vowel becomes unimportant, and the CVCe verbs are phonemically, if not phonetically, CVC. > You believe (or hope) that tt???? is bimorphemic. OK, let?s say it?s possible -- if it is conjugated 1s tt?bl?, 2s tt??n? (or tt?hn?, whatever), but in Kansa it?s a unit: att?y?, yatt?y?, and there?s no reason to believe that tt? is ?ground?. Some people used to think that m???? ?walk? was ?earth-move? until we discovered m? ?go? in Catawba. That?s the kind of comical etymologizing philosophers used to do in the Middle Ages: vulpe ?fox? must be vol-ere ?to fly? plus pe-dem- ?foot?, because the fox is fleet of foot. So if the idea that m???? means 'earth-move' is comical, exactly how do you relate it to Catawba m? ?go?? Was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' m??r?, and Catawban lost the second syllable? In that case, how do you know that the original etymology was not, in fact, 'earth-move', which was used for 'walk' or 'go' in both languages? It is a bimorphemic word, after all, because the second part of it conjugates separately. Or was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' m??? In that case the Siouan word apparently works out to 'go-move' instead of 'earth-move'. (Reading your commentary in the CSD, I gather you take the latter view.) In Omaha, tt???? conjugates as a unit as it does in Kaw. In the CSD, you reconstruct the Proto-Siouan form as *wa-ht??he, and suggest that the Dhegihan form reanalyzed the final -he as ??, 'be in motion', by analogy with m????. So this word too, though an active CVCv form (unless -he is a separate morpheme), turns out to end in -e in Proto-Siouan. At this point, we still have no Proto-Siouan monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form, where v is other than -e, on the table to serve as evidence that the -e at the end of CVC(e) active verb roots was contrastive, and therefore phonemic. > A parallel example: In Spanish all the verbs end in ?r. That may make it a morpheme, but it doesn?t make it epenthetic, does it? I think you would know Latin-Romance history better than I would, but my assumption is that the final -r for Spanish infinitives comes from the -re that seems to end most or all active infinitives in Latin. I agree that it is almost certainly a morpheme, and that if it is a morpheme then it is not purely epenthetic. (I.e., possibly in proto-Latin, the r in -(r)e was epenthetic, and the conditioning -e was later lost in Spanish.) But in any case, I don't think we consider that final -re/-r to be part of the verb root. > As we discussed last time, the ?e in Siouan active verbs might even be a morpheme, but if it is, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis. Yes, it would be the end of the epenthesis hypothesis, but it would not be the end of the CVC hypothesis. In that case, we have CVC as the root morpheme, and -e as a separate morpheme that might have meant something like the Latin -re, i.e. a particle marking perhaps an infinitive or stative mode. And I am as open to this hypothesis as to the epenthesis model. If the -e endings are morphemes, then it is a little more realistic to view them as having phonemic value through much or all of Siouan history in the same manner as the Spanish -r. At the same time, it would easily explain why we have so many CVCe active verbs, and few to no active verbs of form CVCv where v is other than -e. We could assume that ablauting particles simply replace the -e particle because the two are modally inconsistent. We would have the problem, though, of explaining where the -e morpheme goes when the verb root is CV, which the epenthesis model nicely avoids. (Neither model avoids the problem of why CV verbs with V = e also ablaut!) Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 15 22:35:03 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:35:03 +0000 Subject: Ablaut et al. Message-ID: > Yes, I think we have ended up with this sort of disagreement before. From my point of view, you tend to confuse phonology with orthography. Your approach is more letter-oriented, which leads to EITHER...OR dichotomies like the one that started this discussion. I don't think phonologists "confuse" phonology with spelling, but, you're right, what you seem to be talking about has been known as "the phonemic principle" for over a century. Precise definitions differ, but it IS segment-based for the most part, and a given segment is either present or not in the surface string. There's no "in between". There is a general agreement that a phoneme, whether underlying or superficial, is composed of a set of distinctive features that can, themselves, change, thus altering entire sets of phonemes. And a given feature or phoneme doesn?t have to contrast with all the other phonemes of the language in every single environment. > I am more inclined to pronounce the words to myself, paying attention to the mechanics of how they are made and how these mechanics would evolve from one stage to another. This leads me to consider intermediate possibilities between the EITHER and the OR. We both are interested in the evolution of these languages, but it seems to me that your view of phonological evolution is somewhat more punctuational than mine. I can see that, although I can?t sympathize with the technique as a primary way of learning in a literate society where there are centuries of genuine past scholarship. You must have a very low opinion of past generations of linguists. While I commend the attempt by a highly intelligent person such as yourself to invent linguistics/ phonology ex-novo, I've found that it's generally more useful to take the literature seriously and see what other intelligent scholars have found first. I've heard good things about the recent Linguistic Institute at CU from Justin, and I attended one back in '97 myself to get "caught up" with certain aspects of the discipline. I highly recommend the experience. > I believe it is active verbs of CVCv type that we have been discussing here, as a tangent from your post on ablaut that raised the question of possible CVC roots in that context. In a previous message, I forgot to include "active verb" in the specification list, and was kicking myself shortly after pressing the "Send" button. Gee, that's never happened to me. :-D LOL > My question is: Do we have monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv type in Proto-Siouan where v is a vowel other than -e? If so, is there a significant number of them, and what are some examples? OK, But you realize that you are evidently positing morphemic status for this -e of active verb stems. In effect it would mean "I am an active verb stem." just as -r in Spanish is a morpheme that says "I am the nominalized form of an active verb stem." (i.e., an "infinitive"). As we've agreed before, -e might be a morpheme. JEK has argued for it; I've argued against it. I'm still not satisfied with either argument from a historical point of view. The matter can never be settled from a synchronic point of view. One counter argument is that a morpheme -e should also mark monosyllabic active verbs, but it doesn?t. There IS a different ?e that is found affixed to verbs, and that?s the causative morpheme. If the ?ablauting? ?e is really a morpheme, I?d expect it to be suffixed with an epenthetic glide, -r-, like the causative, but that doesn?t happen. > We?re talking about phonology primarily, not morphology. The syllable structure ought to be uniform. And, in fact, it demonstrably is. That?s really all I?m saying. Languages have syllable canons. The cognate sets show that proto-Siouan had an open syllable structure and that all your CVC words in fact had the final vowel. Any differences between this surface structure generalization and underlying structure have to be motivated. You can?t just say there are underlying CVC syllables without proper motivation, and you don?t have that except in Dakota and maybe Winnebago. How many times and ways do I have to say it? The cognate sets militate against it and the overall syllable canon militates against it. > So if the idea that m???? means 'earth-move' is comical, exactly how do you relate it to Catawba m? ?go?? One of the salient characteristics of Siouan languages is the compounding of motion verbs. Best treatment is Allan Taylor?s IJAL paper about ?73 or ?74. > . . . how do you know that the original etymology was not, in fact, 'earth-move', which was used for 'walk' or 'go' in both languages? It is a bimorphemic word, after all, because the second part of it conjugates separately. Or was the original Siouan-Catawban word for 'go' m??? In that case the Siouan word apparently works out to 'go-move' instead of 'earth-move'. (Reading your commentary in the CSD, I gather you take the latter view.) Catawba data do suggest that *w?? was an older motion verb. Why you would have to say ?earth-move? for ?walk? if there is no other kind of movement for contrast? There?s no ?water move?, people can?t fly and there were no horses or wheels. In Omaha, tt????? conjugates as a unit as it does in Kaw. In the CSD, you reconstruct the Proto-Siouan form as *wa-ht??he, and suggest that the Dhegihan form reanalyzed the final -he as ??, 'be in motion', by analogy with m????. So this word too, though an active CVCv form (unless -he is a separate morpheme), turns out to end in -e in Proto-Siouan. But not in Dhegiha languages. ?? is unaccented and is an exception to your CVCv rule, such as it is. But you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your ?CVC? roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it?s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-? or ??. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we?re discussing. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there?s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ?be?. It?s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ?be of existence?, ?be of class membership?, ?locative be?, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary ?he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-h?, ??k-h?, ath??-he, t-h?, a??-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it?s meaning seems to be related to ?locative be?. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-??? ?be, do?. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-??, ?-??, ??, seemingly ?did? or ?was?, but there is also an invariant version with the shape ?? or an apparent reduced *-? that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic ?r- to separate vowels: *r? = [n?] or [na]. It functions to mark ?anterior mode? in most languages and is post-verbal. It?s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and ?he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ?this? or ?that?. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. > At this point, we still have no Proto-Siouan monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form, where v is other than -e, on the table to serve as evidence that the -e at the end of CVC(e) active verb roots was contrastive, and therefore phonemic. We don?t need ?monomorphemic active verb roots of CVCv form?? That?s another mistaken view of phonology. Many phonemes have a low functional load in particular contexts. They need only contrast in other environments or in other parts of speech. There are lots of nouns, particles, adverbs and active verbs that end in all kinds of vowels. You just want to ignore them. You seem to want to think that different parts of speech (grammatical categories) (or even SUB-categories!) have different phonological inventories. That may possibly be true in some creoles, but it isn?t true in Siouan. From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 15 22:51:12 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:51:12 +0000 Subject: Some proto-Siouan verbal auxiliary particles. Message-ID: For those of you who are bored with the back and forth about Siouan syllable structure, I wanted to repeat here a portion of my latest reply to Rory. It's on a different topic. Any of you who have taken a look at the Comparative Siouan Dictionary may have noticed several recurring endings on reconstructed verbs. Many aspects of these remain unidentified and there should be several nice paper topics in these data. I will attach a version of the comments below to this posting. It is a Word file with all the italics, etc. intact. My current email program won't reproduce italics, bolding, different fonts, etc. Here's the info: ... you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your ?CVC? roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it?s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-? or ??. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we?re discussing. Several of these crop up as verb suffixes in modern Siouan languages, often with very vague or indeterminate meaning. In the proto language the meanings must have been much more specific. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there?s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ?be?. It?s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ?be of existence?, ?be of class membership?, ?locative be?, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary ?he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-h?, ??k-h?, ath??-he, t-h?, a??-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it?s meaning seems to be related to ?locative be?. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-??? ?be, do?. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-??, ?-??, ??, seemingly ?did? or ?was?, but there is also an invariant version with the shape ?? or an apparent reduced *-? that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic ?r- to separate vowels: *r? = [n?] or [na]. It functions to mark ?anterior mode? in most languages and is post-verbal. It?s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and ?he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ?this? or ?that?. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CVC again.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24576 bytes Desc: CVC again.doc URL: From carudin1 at WSC.EDU Thu Sep 15 23:41:57 2011 From: carudin1 at WSC.EDU (Catherine Rudin) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:41:57 -0500 Subject: Some proto-Siouan verbal auxiliary particles. Message-ID: What Bob said!! I'm not going to take it on, certainly not any time soon, but SOMEBODY should definitely take a careful look at all this data and tell the rest of us the results. Fascinating!! Catherine >>> "Rankin, Robert L" 09/15/11 5:55 PM >>> For those of you who are bored with the back and forth about Siouan syllable structure, I wanted to repeat here a portion of my latest reply to Rory. It's on a different topic. Any of you who have taken a look at the Comparative Siouan Dictionary may have noticed several recurring endings on reconstructed verbs. Many aspects of these remain unidentified and there should be several nice paper topics in these data. I will attach a version of the comments below to this posting. It is a Word file with all the italics, etc. intact. My current email program won't reproduce italics, bolding, different fonts, etc. Here's the info: ... you bring up a genuinely interesting question, or actually set of questions. There are several proto-Siouan verb suffixes that need a lot of work. And they show that several of your ?CVC? roots are actually CV. The second C belongs to a proto suffix or enclitic when it?s an /r/ or /h/. If you go through all the verbs in the CSD you find a lot with the suffixes *-re, *-he, and *-? or ??. These occur with such frequency that they must have been morphemes. In an OV language like Siouan they must have had some sort of auxiliary status. Nobody has attempted to explain these, but someday it will surely be profitable to do so, and it could help explain some of the phonological structures we?re discussing. Several of these crop up as verb suffixes in modern Siouan languages, often with very vague or indeterminate meaning. In the proto language the meanings must have been much more specific. -Re is one common proto-Siouan verb suffix. (Dick Carter believes that there?s an element of epenthesis in *-re. He wrote this up for Mandan at one of the Siouan Conferences.) I believe it is definitely a morpheme related to one of the notions we translate as ?be?. It?s also commonly found in Catawba. No one has tried to determine if it is ?be of existence?, ?be of class membership?, ?locative be?, etc. But it must have had a function. The suffix or enclitic *-he found at the end of many verb reconstructions may or may not be related to the auxiliary ?he found with virtually all the Dhegiha positional auxiliaries: k-h?, ??k-h?, ath??-he, t-h?, a??-he, etc.,( the defective verb conjugated only in the 2nd person). It is certainly prominent in the CSD verb reconstructions. In Dhegiha it?s meaning seems to be related to ?locative be?. The other apparent proto-Siouan auxiliary is apparently derived from *-??? ?be, do?. There is clearly a conjugated auxiliary: m-??, ?-??, ??, seemingly ?did? or ?was?, but there is also an invariant version with the shape ?? or an apparent reduced *-? that is just the final phoneme of many verb stems. There is also an invariant enclitic with the usual epenthetic ?r- to separate vowels: *r? = [n?] or [na]. It functions to mark ?anterior mode? in most languages and is post-verbal. It?s found throughout Dhegiha, in Biloxi and, I think, in Mandan and Chiwere/Hochunk. Many of you will have noticed by now that at least two of these affixes or enclitics, -re and ?he also turn up prominently as demonstrative particles, ?this? or ?that?. This may be coincidence, but it may not be. Somebody, sometime needs to attack these data and see what shakes out. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Sat Sep 17 00:28:17 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:28:17 -0500 Subject: Ablaut et al. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBBA9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Let's see if we can tighten this discussion back up again. I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha tt?????, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 15:41:04 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:41:04 +0000 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published This is to announce the publication of Tan?ks-T?yos? Kadakathi, Biloxi English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks and is available for free immediate download through http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com. Abstract: Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from Siouan and other la! nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. Thank you. -- David Kaufman, Ph.C. University of Kansas Linguistic Anthropology From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 23:21:53 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:21:53 +0000 Subject: Ablaut ad nauseum. Message-ID: > I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha tt?????, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. The exact status of CVCv roots (not stems) in Proto-Siouan is not certain. We used Dick Carter's database originally at the '84 workshop at CU, and his database apparently included all the roots he regarded as CVC from his dissertation. Note that these include a lot of STATIVE verbs too. A couple of them were included in the cognate sets I listed in an earlier post. I'll post them again if anybody wants me to. My main point is that we've learned that the selection of lexical verbs isn't random. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: > 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. No, it's not possible to establish the facts for integral parts of the ROOT except by further internal reconstruction. But, YES, an integral part of the STEM AND of the LEXEME, i.e., final -e was present as part of the WORD in ALL of the verbs that show -e, or the regular reflex of *-e, in the cognate sets. We've both cited any number of examples. You can't say it "wasn't there" in proto-Siouan unless you want to claim that each of the languages innovated an epenthesis rule independently. > 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. I see what you mean. I don't know that we have evidence for that, but we DO have evidence that, even in proto-Siouan, active verbs could end in more than just -e, (and also, that CVCv stative verbs could end in unaccented -e). The regularity of such sound changes would affect all lexemes in the language, so nouns, adverbs, etc. would also all end in -e if unaccented. If you're dealing with real Lautgesetz, the phonology is affected across the board. It's only found in particular grammatical or lexical categories if you're dealing with ANALOGY or BORROWING, i.e., so called "Labovian sound change". So I'd say (2), vowel reduction, is ruled out. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I just don't think we can know this for the proto language This is technically possible, but the phoneme /-e/ is still there in reconstructions of Proto-Siouan vocabulary. Given the otherwise completely OPEN syllable structure, I personally wouldn't want to give up that important phonological generalization. It explains accent in Dakotan but not in the rest of the languages. In some phonological theories, "prediction" of the most common vowel wouldn't be acceptable even if it were the only vowel in that environment. > 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. Well, not 'infinitive', but I take your meaning. We could call it a 'stem formative'. Personally, I don't think this is tenable with our present knowledge. If EVERY active verb ended in -e, we could argue this, but many don't. Bear in mind, though, that putative auxiliary I mentioned in my last post, namely *-re. IF your -e is a morpheme that follows a root-final consonant, then *-re would be the allomorph that would follow root-final VOWELS. You could try pursuing that hypothesis. Personally, I just don't know at present whether, e.g., *riN-re would be a proto-Siouan STEM formed from a ROOT with the shape *riN 'be moving'. If you believe -e is a stem-forming morpheme, then the next step might be to check out the function(s) of *-re. I've > I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. It looks to me as though we have been lumping the notions ROOT, STEM and WORD (or LEXEME). These are all distinct concepts. Root is the smallest; word is potentially the largest. We've generally tried to reconstruct the largest of these units possible, given sound change regularity, in the CSD database. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Given my caveats, I think so. I believe we just believe in different degrees of necessity in "interpretation" of reconstructed vocabulary, i.e., in languages other than Dakotan. Bob From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 18 23:41:24 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:41:24 +0000 Subject: Ablaut ad naus.;. Correction. Message-ID: Sorry, one of my comments got appended to Rory's comment immediately below: > 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I tend to lose control of my cursor in email sometimes. The additional sentence to the effect that "I don't think we can know that" etc. is my own, not Rory's. It belongs somewhere in the paragraph by me that followed. Bob From mawakuni-swetland2 at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Mon Sep 19 13:18:33 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:18:33 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBF58@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Aloha David, Congratulations on the Biloxi-English Dictionary release. UdoN shkaxe, ebthegoN. Mark Awakuni-Swetland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU Mon Sep 19 13:37:08 2011 From: rlarson at UNLNOTES.UNL.EDU (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:37:08 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBF58@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Great! Congratulations, David! Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/18/2011 10:44 AM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published This is to announce the publication of Tan?ks-T?yos? Kadakathi, Biloxi English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks and is available for free immediate download through http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/.> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com. Abstract: Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from Siouan and other la! nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. Thank you. -- David Kaufman, Ph.C. University of Kansas Linguistic Anthropology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jtmcbri at OSTATEMAIL.OKSTATE.EDU Mon Sep 19 21:09:26 2011 From: jtmcbri at OSTATEMAIL.OKSTATE.EDU (Mcbride-Student,STW, Justin) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:09:26 -0500 Subject: FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Way to go, Dave! I've already downloaded it and look forward to reading it. -Justin P.S. It's so nice to be back on the list. Thanks much, Mark. On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Rory M Larson wrote: > Great! Congratulations, David! > > Rory > > > > > *"Rankin, Robert L" * > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > > 09/18/2011 10:44 AM > Please respond to > Siouan Linguistics > > To > SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > cc > Subject > FW: Biloxi-English Dictionary published > > > > > From: David Kaufman [dvkanth2010 at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:33 PM > Subject: Biloxi-English Dictionary published > > This is to announce the publication of Tan?ks-T?yos? Kadakathi, Biloxi > English Dictionary with English-Biloxi Index, ISBN: 978-1-936153-08-4. It > has been published online through the University of Kansas KU Scholarworks > and is available for free immediate download through > http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8006. The book and its contents may be used in > accordance with the Creative Commons License as stipulated through < > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/.> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/. The Dictionary will > be periodically revised and updated. Any feedback on the Dictionary or > suggestions for future editions may be addressed to the editor/author: David > Kaufman, dvkanth2010 at gmail.com > >. > > Abstract: > > Biloxi (ISO 639-3: bll) is a dormant Siouan language. The only known > resource available on the language has been A Dictionary of the Biloxi and > Ofo Languages (1912). The first linguist to document Biloxi in Louisiana > was Albert Gatschet in 1886, who discovered that Biloxi was actually Siouan, > not Muskogean as previously thought. The Reverend James O. Dorsey further > documented the language in Louisiana in 1892-93. His dictionary, also > incorporating some of Gatschet's previous work, was posthumously edited and > published by the linguist John Swanton in 1912. The revised dictionary here > contains most of the original Dorsey-Swanton data augmented with new entries > (from Gatschet's unpublished field notes and from Haas's 1968 article, "The > Last Words of Biloxi"). The current dictionary also regularizes the modified > Americanist orthography. It contains 2,138 entries and includes my > etymological analyses and notations, an English index, comparative data from > Siouan and other la! > nguages, example sentences, cross-referencing of entries, cultural > information, a brief grammatical sketch, as well as appendices on, for > example, affixes, flora and fauna, medicinal plants, and human body parts. > > Thank you. > > -- > David Kaufman, Ph.C. > University of Kansas > Linguistic Anthropology > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu Mon Sep 19 22:33:25 2011 From: rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu (Rory M Larson) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:33:25 -0500 Subject: Ablaut ad nauseum. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EBFF2@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Excellent! Thank you, Bob. That was a very good response, and it leaves me some things to chew on. At this point, I think it would be the better part of valor to either cap the discussion or take it off-line. My apologies to everyone on the list for this overly-long wrangle! All the best, Rory "Rankin, Robert L" Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/18/2011 06:24 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Ablaut ad nauseum. > I think we accept that there existed CVCv active verb roots in proto-Siouan, where the lower case v represents an unaccented vowel. We seem to be finding that all, or almost all, CVCv active verb roots were specifically CVCe. Some of the daughter languages have secondarily derived forms in which the v is some other vowel than -e, as in Omaha tt?????, 'run'. But in proto-Siouan, active verb roots of the form CVCv were in general distinguishable from each other by the initial CVC sequence only, and not by the final unaccented vowel. The exact status of CVCv roots (not stems) in Proto-Siouan is not certain. We used Dick Carter's database originally at the '84 workshop at CU, and his database apparently included all the roots he regarded as CVC from his dissertation. Note that these include a lot of STATIVE verbs too. A couple of them were included in the cognate sets I listed in an earlier post. I'll post them again if anybody wants me to. My main point is that we've learned that the selection of lexical verbs isn't random. We have tossed out several possible hypotheses to explain this pattern: > 1) The unaccented final vowel was a separate phoneme that was an integral part of the root. The fact that it was always or almost always -e is insignificant, because some vowel had to predominate. No, it's not possible to establish the facts for integral parts of the ROOT except by further internal reconstruction. But, YES, an integral part of the STEM AND of the LEXEME, i.e., final -e was present as part of the WORD in ALL of the verbs that show -e, or the regular reflex of *-e, in the cognate sets. We've both cited any number of examples. You can't say it "wasn't there" in proto-Siouan unless you want to claim that each of the languages innovated an epenthesis rule independently. > 2) The unaccented final vowel was the schwa'ed out reduction of any of the eight possible vowels due to a process that affected active verb roots of CVCv type. In this model, a prior position of phonemic distinctiveness merged together. CVCa, CVCe, CVCi, CVCo, CVCu, CVCaN, CVCiN and CVCuN all collapsed into something that we reconstruct as CVCe. I see what you mean. I don't know that we have evidence for that, but we DO have evidence that, even in proto-Siouan, active verbs could end in more than just -e, (and also, that CVCv stative verbs could end in unaccented -e). The regularity of such sound changes would affect all lexemes in the language, so nouns, adverbs, etc. would also all end in -e if unaccented. If you're dealing with real Lautgesetz, the phonology is affected across the board. It's only found in particular grammatical or lexical categories if you're dealing with ANALOGY or BORROWING, i.e., so called "Labovian sound change". So I'd say (2), vowel reduction, is ruled out. 3) The CVCe active verb roots were all underlyingly CVC, but received an epenthetic -e either as a requirement for the release of a final consonant or to fill out syllable structure. I just don't think we can know this for the proto language This is technically possible, but the phoneme /-e/ is still there in reconstructions of Proto-Siouan vocabulary. Given the otherwise completely OPEN syllable structure, I personally wouldn't want to give up that important phonological generalization. It explains accent in Dakotan but not in the rest of the languages. In some phonological theories, "prediction" of the most common vowel wouldn't be acceptable even if it were the only vowel in that environment. > 4) The final -e is a separate morpheme, like Spanish -r used to mark the infinitives of verbs. In this case, the root itself of these CVC-e verbs is composed of CVC without the -e. Well, not 'infinitive', but I take your meaning. We could call it a 'stem formative'. Personally, I don't think this is tenable with our present knowledge. If EVERY active verb ended in -e, we could argue this, but many don't. Bear in mind, though, that putative auxiliary I mentioned in my last post, namely *-re. IF your -e is a morpheme that follows a root-final consonant, then *-re would be the allomorph that would follow root-final VOWELS. You could try pursuing that hypothesis. Personally, I just don't know at present whether, e.g., *riN-re would be a proto-Siouan STEM formed from a ROOT with the shape *riN 'be moving'. If you believe -e is a stem-forming morpheme, then the next step might be to check out the function(s) of *-re. I've > I am open to hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, but I find hypothesis 1 to be unexplanatory. My understanding is that Bob favors hypothesis 1 and rejects hypotheses 3 and 4. It looks to me as though we have been lumping the notions ROOT, STEM and WORD (or LEXEME). These are all distinct concepts. Root is the smallest; word is potentially the largest. We've generally tried to reconstruct the largest of these units possible, given sound change regularity, in the CSD database. Bob, is this a fair statement of what we agree on concerning this question, and where we differ? Given my caveats, I think so. I believe we just believe in different degrees of necessity in "interpretation" of reconstructed vocabulary, i.e., in languages other than Dakotan. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Tue Sep 20 21:39:14 2011 From: linguist at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Bryan James Gordon) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:39:14 -0700 Subject: Fwd: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bryan James Gordon Date: 2011/9/20 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows To: lingua at listserv.arizona.edu, Siouan Listserv I don't know how many of y'all have already designed one or bought a Tavultesoft licence or something, but finally with Windows 7 the framework for designing your own Windows keymap is free of charge. Not wanting to be at the mercy of Toolbox in wine anymore, or of praat's notorious sound-compatibility issues in Linux, I took the initative and am distributing it free of charge. Send far and wide. It has a special ogonek series for you Americanists, and if you're an Indo-Europeanist or Semiticist or someone else with special non-IPA needs, feel free to dig into the source code and make your own version! Please note, this keymap has software compatibility issues with certain software, notably Word, particularly with the AltGr key which Word persists in either not recognising as AltGr, or refuses to combine with dead keys. (For some reason it works fine in all the rest of Office, and of course in Toolbox, praat, NotePad, anything else you might use.) Anyway, for typing in IPA Word is a bear anyway, autocorrecting and autoformatting as it does. I suggest if you want to polish your document in Word later, fine, but type your IPA elsewhere. -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -- *********************************************************** Bryan James Gordon, MA Joint PhD Program in Linguistics and Anthropology University of Arizona *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ipa-gordon.zip Type: application/zip Size: 488817 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Thu Sep 22 14:13:53 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:13:53 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Message-ID: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WALKER Lakota Society-Poyandry.PDF Type: application/octet-stream Size: 177908 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pustetrm at YAHOO.COM Thu Sep 22 17:13:07 2011 From: pustetrm at YAHOO.COM (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:13:07 -0700 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Mark, ? Off the top of my head, I don't remember any data on polyandry among the Lakota, neither from the literature nor from my own fieldwork, but this oldie but goodie would be worth checking on in this respect: ? Hassrick, Royal B. 1964. The Sioux: Life and customs of a warrior society University of Oklahoma Press ? Best, Regina ________________________________ From: Mark J Awakuni-Swetland To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:13 AM Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 22 22:37:25 2011 From: george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM (George Wilmes) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:37:25 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mark, here is an entry from Buechel's Lakota dictionary (as transcribed into the Colorado Siouan Archive; sorry about the formatting): 1 WIC'>U'N*KES*NI 2 ONE WHO KNOWS NOTHING OR DOES NOT CARE TO DO ANYTHING, IS INCOMPETENT TO KEEP HOUSE. NOTE: THE WORD IS APPLIED ONLY TO WOMEN. 3 N. 4 +LILA TA'NYA'N LOLIYAH'>''A'N S*NI YELO; - CA LOLIH'>''A'N S''E 5 AS THEY WOULD SAY OF A WOMAN WHOSE COOKING WAS VERY POOR, INTIMATING THAT FOR THIS REASON SHE HAD MANY HUSBANDS. 11 P 583 And this from Kaschube's Crow texts: 1 -- I*SAHKE* LU'*:B'6M HAWA*S'^C'^+IS'^I:N KUSC'^+ISSA*L'6HGUK 2 --/ OLD MEN,/ TWO/ BACK AND FORTH,/ SHE GOES./ 8 PAGE51 LINE1 BOTTOM WORD1 +THE +CROW +INDIAN NAME AND THE TRANSLATION HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THE NARRATIVE IS OF A PERSONAL REFERENCE TO A WOMAN WITH TWO HUSBANDS. 11 PAGE51 LINE1 BOTTOM And this from Lowie's Crow word list: 1 DU*':P, DU*':P'6, DU*':PARE, DU*':PAR'6K, DU*':PKA':CE, DU*':PET, DU*':PTUM 2 TWO 3 ADJ. ... 4 BI*':'6CT TSIRA*':RUPDE':T'HBICI'*':ND'6K'H 5 WOMEN'8 THERE IS NONE WHO HAS NOT TWO HUSBANDS ... 11 +P. 89 Hope that helps! George On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a > woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of > his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for > that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 From mary.marino at USASK.CA Fri Sep 23 03:27:40 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:27:40 -0600 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry > (a woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source > of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan > groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term > for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of > relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > > http://omahalanguage.unl.edu > http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu Fri Sep 23 13:01:14 2011 From: mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu (Mark J Awakuni-Swetland) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:01:14 -0500 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <4E7BFCAC.9090301@usask.ca> Message-ID: Aloha Mary, Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. Mark Mary C Marino Sent by: Siouan Linguistics 09/22/11 10:28 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Fri Sep 23 19:53:24 2011 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:53:24 +0000 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aloha Mark, Mary, and All, Might the practice of the levirate and institutionalized joking between a woman and her husband's brothers be related to a potential sexual relationship there (especially if the brother's wife were to die)? Outside the realm of Siouan-speaking groups, I do recall E. Adamson Hoebel's work on the Cheyenne mentioning that the legal punishment for adultery was NOT enforced for one's wife sleeping with one of a man's brothers because in fact, a brother had the traditional right of sexual access to his brother(s)' wife. Since the traditional anthropological explanation of polyandry emphasizes fraternal examples, it really seems to fit with the concept of temporary or sporadic wife sharing. When would you decide where the former stopped, and actual polyandry began? It was a long time ago when I was asked to teach someone's course on Social Control and Law, so I could be misremembering a detail, but the shock value of that scenario made an impression on my then-youngish mind. This recollection comes especially from the book he wrote about law and legal systems - sorry the exact reference is at home, and my brain is hoping for the weekend to begin soon, but it's an interesting discussion. Naturally, it fits better with a patrilineal descent reckoning, which makes me wonder if it is totally unheard of in Crow? Best, Jill Dr. Jill D. Greer Associate Professor Social Science Department MSSU 3950 E. Newman Road Joplin, MO 64801 417.625.9795 Greer-j at mssu.edu From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:01 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Aloha Mary, Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. Mark Mary C Marino > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > 09/22/11 10:28 PM Please respond to Siouan Linguistics > To SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu cc Subject Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry Hello Mark I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he give a Lakota expression? Mary On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: Aloha All, My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry (a woman having more than one husband). They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of Walker's book for your reference. Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being considered "buried" Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan groups? I am not aware of it among the Omaha. I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of relations, etc. Thanks Mark Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies Native American Studies Program Liaison University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology 841 Oldfather Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 http://omahalanguage.unl.edu http://omahaponca.unl.edu Phone 402-472-3455 FAX: 402-472-9642 This email may contain identifiable personal information that is subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is intended for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail (reply). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Sat Sep 24 03:21:14 2011 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:21:14 -0600 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walker doesn't say anything about the 'buried man' being the woman's brother-in-law. He says that this arrangement could only happen with the husband's consent, seldom given, which argues against any sort of customary right. What Walker describes in this passage doesn't sound like marriage at all: he does not say anything about coresidence, economic obligations between the 'buried man' and the couple, or any of the other concommitants of marriage, except for parentage of children of the relationship, which was assigned to the original pair. I suspect that Walker was of the view that the only socially-approved sex relations a woman could have were marital: polyandry would exist if a woman could have such relations with more than one man at a time. Put simply: if a woman has sex with a man, he's her husband, otherwise she's an adultress. Mary On 23/09/2011 1:53 PM, Greer, Jill wrote: > > Aloha Mark, Mary, and All, > > Might the practice of the levirate and institutionalized joking > between a woman and her husband's brothers be related to a potential > sexual relationship there (especially if the brother's wife were to die)? > > Outside the realm of Siouan-speaking groups, I do recall E. Adamson > Hoebel's work on the Cheyenne mentioning that the legal punishment for > adultery was NOT enforced for one's wife sleeping with one of a man's > brothers because in fact, a brother had the traditional right of > sexual access to his brother(s)' wife. Since the traditional > anthropological explanation of polyandry emphasizes fraternal > examples, it really seems to fit with the concept of temporary or > sporadic wife sharing. When would you decide where the former > stopped, and actual polyandry began? It was a long time ago when I > was asked to teach someone's course on Social Control and Law, so I > could be misremembering a detail, but the shock value of that > scenario made an impression on my then-youngish mind. > > This recollection comes especially from the book he wrote about law > and legal systems - sorry the exact reference is at home, and my > brain is hoping for the weekend to begin soon, but it's an > interesting discussion. Naturally, it fits better with a > patrilineal descent reckoning, which makes me wonder if it is totally > unheard of in Crow? > > Best, > > Jill > > Dr. Jill D. Greer > > Associate Professor > > Social Science Department > > MSSU > > 3950 E. Newman Road > > Joplin, MO 64801 > > 417.625.9795 > > Greer-j at mssu.edu > > *From:*Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] *On Behalf > Of *Mark J Awakuni-Swetland > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2011 8:01 AM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > > Aloha Mary, > Thanks for the 'fertility expedient' idea. > Walker does not provide a Lakota expression in the surrounding text. > He does not expand on the term "buried man" either. > Mark > > *Mary C Marino >* > Sent by: Siouan Linguistics > > > 09/22/11 10:28 PM > > Please respond to > Siouan Linguistics > > > > > To > > > > SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > cc > > > > Subject > > > > Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > > > > > > > > Hello Mark > > I have never heard of this before regarding either the Lakota or the > Dakota, and I think this is a questionable use of the term > 'polyandry'. It sounds more like an expedient to address infertility > in a marriage otherwise satisfactory to the husband and wife. Does > Walker further describe this concept of the 'buried man'? Does he > give a Lakota expression? > > Mary > > > On 22/09/2011 8:13 AM, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland wrote: > Aloha All, > My Anthropology Department Chair Ray Hames brought me a copy of James > Walker's LAKOTA SOCIETY with an inquiry. > > He and a student are preparing a journal article describing polyandry > (a woman having more than one husband). > > They are finding accounts of this practice in groups outside of the > regularly cited groups known to use this strategy. > > In the Walker case, there is no reference or citation as to the source > of his statement regarding polyandry among the Lakota. > > I have included the paragraph that mentions polyandry from page 55 of > Walker's book for your reference. > > Ray Hames also inquired as to the meaning of the second husband being > considered "buried" > > Does anyone know of this practice among the Lakota or other Siouan > groups? > > I am not aware of it among the Omaha. > > I would presume that if such a practice existed there would be a term > for that names this arrangement, the second husband, terms of > relations, etc. > > Thanks > Mark > > > > > Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Anthropology & Ethnic Studies > Native American Studies Program Liaison > University of Nebraska > Department of Anthropology > 841 Oldfather Hall > Lincoln, NE 68588-0368 > _ > _http://omahalanguage.unl.edu _ > _http://omahaponca.unl.edu > Phone 402-472-3455 > FAX: 402-472-9642 > > > > This email may contain identifiable personal information that is > subject to protection under state and federal law. This information is > intended for the use of the individual named above. If you are not the > intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited > and may be punishable by law. If you have received this electronic > transmission in error, please notify us immediately by electronic mail > (reply). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sat Sep 24 14:47:37 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:47:37 +0200 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Mark, The term 'buried man' is an English rendition of one of two Lakota words for 'son-in-law'. Normally son-in-law was addressed thako's^, but another term was wicha'woh^a. The latter was used for a man who moved to his wife's band, rather than live with the band of his parents. The term 'buried man' is possibly a translation of folk etymology although it must have been around for quite long as it was first mentioned in Riggs' 1852 dictionary. Riggs gave the following definition of wicha'woh^a "a man who lives with his wife's relations, literally a buried man" Buechel defines it as follows: "a man who lives with his relatives, lit. a buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on with them." (sic) Note the lack of "wife's" before 'relatives', which is very likely an omission done by Manhardt (who edited the manuscript after Buechel's death), as omissions of words or parts of words in both the English and Lakota texts are rather frequent in Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard to understand why Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under his editing or why it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript is problematic with respect to so many of its aspects.) Deloria in one of her dictionary manuscripts gives the following definition of wichawoh^a: "son-in-law i.e. living near his wife's relations where he must enact his part, maintaining the correct attitude towards them at all times." Riggs defines wichawoh^a as "a buried man" taking woh^a to mean "cache," but from the second form for daughter-in-law - wiwayuh^a - it is quite clear that woh^a is a contraction of wayu and h^a. (cf. wiwoh^a)." What I think Deloria is hinting at is that the woh^a component of the term originates from the verb iya'yuh^a or one of its forms. This verb verb means 'to follow someone, to constantly stay close to (as a relative, a child to his/her mother etc.)'. I think this makes sense in the context of the kind of son-in-law and daughter-in-law that wicha'woh^a and wiwo'h^a respectively describe. I never encountered any mention of polyandry among the Lakota other than Walker's. In the light of the above I tend to think that Walker misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the information on marriage and marital customs that the Lakota people had given him. Jan Jan Ullrich Lakota Language Consortium www.lakhota.org From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 15:46:57 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:46:57 +0100 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <02b101cc7ac8$e77a46a0$b66ed3e0$@org> Message-ID: Purely for comparative interest i can add that Persian has a word for it daamaad sar khaaneh 'bride groom at the house (of the in laws)'. Some Arabic dialects say g'eidi 'a (diminutive) sitting (ie residing) person'. English probably regards it as unremarkable and so doesn't have a word for it. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 15:47 > Dear Mark, > > The term 'buried man' is an English rendition of one of two > Lakota words for > 'son-in-law'. Normally son-in-law was addressed thako's^, > but another term > was wicha'woh^a. The latter was used for a man who moved to > his wife's band, > rather than live with the band of his parents. > > The term 'buried man' is possibly a translation of folk > etymology although > it must have been around for quite long as it was first > mentioned in Riggs' > 1852 dictionary. Riggs gave the following definition of > wicha'woh^a > > "a man who lives with his wife's relations, literally a > buried man" > > Buechel defines it as follows: "a man who lives with his > relatives, lit. a > buried man, or one who being attracted to a family stays on > with them." > (sic) Note the lack of "wife's" before 'relatives', which > is very likely an > omission done by Manhardt (who edited the manuscript after > Buechel's death), > as omissions of words or parts of words in both the English > and Lakota texts > are rather frequent in Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard > to understand why > Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under > his editing or why > it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript > is problematic > with respect to so many of its aspects.) > > Deloria in one of her dictionary manuscripts gives the > following definition > of wichawoh^a: "son-in-law i.e. living near his wife's > relations where he > must enact his part, maintaining the correct attitude > towards them at all > times." Riggs defines wichawoh^a as "a buried man" taking > woh^a to mean > "cache," but from the second form for daughter-in-law - > wiwayuh^a - it is > quite clear that woh^a is a contraction of wayu and h^a. > (cf. wiwoh^a)." > > What I think Deloria is hinting at is that the woh^a > component of the term > originates from the verb iya'yuh^a or one of its forms. > This verb verb means > 'to follow someone, to constantly stay close to (as a > relative, a child to > his/her mother etc.)'. I think this makes sense in the > context of the kind > of son-in-law and daughter-in-law that wicha'woh^a and > wiwo'h^a respectively > describe. > > I never encountered any mention of polyandry among the > Lakota other than > Walker's. In the light of the above I tend to think that > Walker > misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the information on > marriage and > marital customs that the Lakota people had given him. > > Jan > > > > Jan Ullrich > Lakota Language Consortium > www.lakhota.org > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 15:53:32 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:53:32 +0100 Subject: Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry In-Reply-To: <02b101cc7ac8$e77a46a0$b66ed3e0$@org> Message-ID: Manhardt's editing. (I find it hard > to understand why > Univ. of Nebraska Press re-published the dictionary under > his editing or why > it was re-published in the first place since the manuscript > is problematic > with respect to so many of its aspects.) De mortuis non nisi bonum. We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a lot of effort into that work with the meager facilities that he had, also re-editing it at an advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing around for a long time. I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. Bruce From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sat Sep 24 16:29:01 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:29:01 +0200 Subject: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) In-Reply-To: <1316879612.12337.YahooMailClassic@web29509.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > De mortuis non nisi bonum. Right! My comment was more about the alive who made the decision to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at his advanced age. > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a lot of effort into > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also re-editing it at an > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing around for a long time. > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making the first edition available to the public! I was mainly referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it doesn't include valuable data, but that without much research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a major proportion. So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to figure out which parts are incorrect. Jan From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 24 18:03:59 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:03:59 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) In-Reply-To: <02c501cc7ad7$119c1220$34d43660$@org> Message-ID: Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is very difficult to see in the small print and the second edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be interested to know how much of the data you consider to be inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have had their doubts about these items, but is there really that much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > Right! > My comment was more about the alive who made the decision > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at > his advanced age. > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a > lot of effort into > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also > re-editing it at an > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing > around for a long time. > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making > the first edition available to the public! I was mainly > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt > to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, > but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a > major proportion. > So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > Jan > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sat Sep 24 18:43:47 2011 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:43:47 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing Message-ID: My two cents regarding all this are in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number 2, April 2004. Willem de Reuse ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is very difficult to see in the small print and the second edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be interested to know how much of the data you consider to be inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have had their doubts about these items, but is there really that much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich wrote: > From: Jan Ullrich > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry inquiry) > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > Right! > My comment was more about the alive who made the decision > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, especially at > his advanced age. > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have put a > lot of effort into > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, also > re-editing it at an > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only thing > around for a long time. > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in making > the first edition available to the public! I was mainly > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary in > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest attempt > to make corrections based on research (with speakers or from > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not that it > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the data > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and definitions > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like Riggs, > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations of > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is perfect, > but in this dictionary the problematic data constitutes a > major proportion. > So, much of the learning from the dictionary inevitably > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is able to > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > Jan > From chafe at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Sat Sep 24 20:03:06 2011 From: chafe at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (Wallace Chafe) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:03:06 -0700 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A26648218257C71@CH1PRD0102MB136.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I met Paul Manhart at the BAE in the early 1960s, and I feel that his reputation needs a little polishing at this point. He was a serious individual who realized, much to his credit, that the huge amount of material left behind by Buechel should be made generally available. He knew he was not a linguist, but he went ahead and worked hard on doing what he could. I'm not sure why he didn't receive more help with the second edition, but I wouldn't blame him or his "advanced age" for its deficiencies. Rather, he should be celebrated for passing on to us Buechel's remarkable heritage. Saying "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" (I believe the word is "nil") suggests a repressed desire to be derogatory, which I think is uncalled for. That's my two cents worth. Wally From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 24 22:21:55 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:21:55 +0000 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to Bryan we have an IPA keyboard for Windows minus Word. I have a complementary Siouan keyboard that works only with Word as far as I know and will attach it here. The symbol set I'm attaching is non-IPA, but it's the one commonly used by Siouanists. This Siouan keyboard for Word takes advantage of the fact that Word uses two different sets of commands using the ALT key to send identical instructions to the program. I have merely reduced these to a single set of ALT commands and then used the other set to send phonetic characters to the text. Specifically, if you hold down the ALT key while typing various letter keys, you get the various Word menus, e.g., ALT-i gives you the ?insertion? menu, and ALT-o gives you the ?formatting? menu, etc. But pressing the ALT key and then pressing the ?i? or ?o? keys afterward gives exactly the same two menus. But it turns out that Word is using two different code strings to send these identical commands. So, for example, you can hold down ALT and press ?o? to send an accented ??? to your text, but pressing ALT and then pressing ?o? will still display the formatting menu. This discovery frees up all the ALT+alphanumeric characters for typing phonetic symbols and doesn?t hamper displaying the menus in Word at all. I have programmed my keyboard to produce all the phonetic characters I need by holding down ALT and pressing mnemonic alphanumeric keys at the same time. In short, using the attached normal.dot file: ALT-Vowel gives the accented vowel. ALT-SHIFT-vowel gives the nasal vowel ALT-consonant gives the various modified consonants. I have attached a key to using my ALT combinations. I have also attached the normal.dot file that will program Word to produce the symbols. It works with Windows XP and Vista, but I have not tested it with Windows 7 or any of the earlier operating systems. I have no idea if it would work for Word running under Apple?s DOS. What I recommend is that you locate your normal.dot file and rename it xnormal.dot. Then copy the attached normal.dot to the same directory on your own PC. This will allow you to try out my keyboard program while retaining the ability to delete it if you don?t like it and go back to your own normal.dot later. You will most likely find normal.dot in the following directory: C:\Documents and Settings\your name\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates. You can, of course, customize this file any way you like. I have stuck to standard Siouanist and Americanist symbols. My feeling is that they have become standard for our discipline. While I have nothing against IPA, it does not provide useful symbols for phonology as opposed to phonetics. In my considerable experience with European languages, I have found that one has to learn a different phonetic alphabet for every language (and sometimes more than one). We do not do students a favor by implying that they only need learn one phonetic alphabet. However, using the ALT+i(nsert)+s(ymbol) command and menu, you can reprogram this normal.dot with whatever symbol set you like. I originally did this keyboard using the Gentium font, downloadable free from the SIL website. You may want to add Gentium to your font collection. However, within a given document, you should be able to just switch fonts to any other Unicode set that has all the necessary symbols if you want. (Some, especially older, Unicode fonts lack a glottal stop, a j with a h??ek (?) and an ?o? with the ogonek beneath it (?)). If you choose not to install Gentium, you might try viewing these symbols in Times New Roman. (I simply don?t know what happens if Word calls for a phonetic symbol in a font that isn?t installed.) Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Normal.dot Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: Normal.dot URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: keyboard.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: keyboard.doc URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 24 23:02:31 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:02:31 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: Father Manhart attended a couple of the early Siouan Conferences and gave short papers. There were a few covert comments about "homilies" and the like, and I'm afraid he probably wasn't made to feel particularly welcome. But both Jan and Wally are right. Our predecessors were almost all "talented amateurs". Horatio Hale, James Owen Dorsey, and Francis Laflesche were among them. Others were primarily ethnographers who documented languages out of a sense of duty, John R. Swanton, and Robert Lowie among them. Where would we be without them? We'd know next to nothing about Tutelo, Ofo, Biloxi, Quapaw and several other languages, and those of us studying Kansa, Omaha, Ponca, and Osage would have had to start virtually from scratch. It's true that they all made their share of mistakes for us to try to sort out, but that's the history of scientific inquiry. I've spent enormous amounts of time trying to correct the transcription errors in Dorsey and add things like vowel le! ngth, but without Dorsey's manuscript materials to work from, my own data collection for Kansa would have been poor indeed. I guess Newton's famous quotation sums it up: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Bob From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 25 11:01:49 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:01:49 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC87@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well put, Bob! >>> "Rankin, Robert L" 25/09/2011 00:02 >>> Father Manhart attended a couple of the early Siouan Conferences and gave short papers. There were a few covert comments about "homilies" and the like, and I'm afraid he probably wasn't made to feel particularly welcome. But both Jan and Wally are right. Our predecessors were almost all "talented amateurs". Horatio Hale, James Owen Dorsey, and Francis Laflesche were among them. Others were primarily ethnographers who documented languages out of a sense of duty, John R. Swanton, and Robert Lowie among them. Where would we be without them? We'd know next to nothing about Tutelo, Ofo, Biloxi, Quapaw and several other languages, and those of us studying Kansa, Omaha, Ponca, and Osage would have had to start virtually from scratch. It's true that they all made their share of mistakes for us to try to sort out, but that's the history of scientific inquiry. I've spent enormous amounts of time trying to correct the transcription errors in Dorsey and add things like vowel le! ngth, but without Dorsey's manuscript materials to work from, my own data collection for Kansa would have been poor indeed. I guess Newton's famous quotation sums it up: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Bob Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. ?Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2011 the third time in five years ?Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) ?Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' Personal Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full English public universities) ?Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback (National Student Survey 2011, 93 full English public universities) ?Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' ?Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Sun Sep 25 12:22:57 2011 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:22:57 +0200 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: What I find unreasonable and uncalled for in the way this thread evolved is that the discussion of the inaccuracies in earlier documentary linguistic works is interpreted by some as derogatory. Taking a critical look at the previous works is fundamental to furthering the research on a language. So I don't see why critical analyses of their works should be interpreted as dismissing the merits or questioning the good intentions of the early lexicographers, most of whom were indeed amateur linguists. In the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary I attempted to provide a fair evaluation of the contribution of the early Dakota and Lakota dictionaries, discussing both their strong and weak points. I emphasized that despite their flaws our current research on the language would have been much more difficult without them. What I think has actually been much more problematic than the quality of the early Dakota and Lakota dictionaries is the lack of critical approach to them. Too often have they been described and used as authoritative and definitive works. I think they should be viewed as a valuable but still preliminary work in progress. Many of the problems with Dakota/Lakota lexicography began with the Dakota translation of the Bible. A significant proportion of this translation has morphological and syntactical constructions that are not attested by data from the authentic texts (early or modern). It is hard to judge whether this was caused by poor translation skills or low Dakota language competence of the bilingual French and Dakota speaking mixed-blood Michael Renville who was the main assistant to Riggs and the Pond brothers during the translation. But what cannot be doubted is that the Riggs dictionary was largely based on this problematic text. And there is plenty of evidence that Buechel used the Riggs Dakota dictionary as his primary source for his Lakota dictionary manuscript (especially in his early years in South Dakota) and borrowed heavily from it. Approximately 70% of the Buechel entries were taken directly from Riggs and more than half of these were never extended nor altered in any way. A large number of these entries was rejected by Deloria or by other native speakers during later research, as not being Lakota words at all. It is clear, therefore, that these entries were never checked with native speakers or attested from texts before the dictionary was first published in 1973. This is one of the reasons I question the decision by Univ. of Nebraska to publish the second edition without any research. Ultimately this means that errors introduced by unidiomatic Bible translation originating in 1840s as (well as other types of inaccuracies) represent a large portion of a book published 152 years later (in 2002) and described by the press as "The most complete and up-to-date Lakota dictionary." Manhart's editing further deepened many of the problems with the Buechel manuscript and brought new ones, still it was good to have the first edition available. But I find it difficult to see any improvements in the second edition. The inconsistencies in spelling and orthography use are exacerbated, translations of the example sentences are mostly incorrect, the chosen type face is hard to read, omissions of words were not fixed, no attempt to involve native speakers was made etc. Reprinting the first edition would have probably done a better service to the researchers on the language. If anyone is interested in reading more of my "two cents" on the early dictionaries please see the introduction to the New Lakota Dictionary. In it I categorize some of the inaccuracies of the early works, but among other things I also say the following: "Manhart's contribution in making Buechel's manuscript available to the public cannot be dismissed, even if most of his editorial decisions were controversial. The Buechel dictionary remains a valuable resource, one that has to be taken into account by any lexicographer who is ready to approach it critically." Jan From george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM Sun Sep 25 14:34:25 2011 From: george.wilmes at GMAIL.COM (George Wilmes) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:34:25 -0500 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC25@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Bob! Another option in Word (especially for Mac users, who may not be able to use the Windows keyboard) is to make the AutoCorrect feature work for you instead of against you. For example, you can have it change the sequence "o~" to "o" followed by Alt+0328 (ogonek combining diacritic; requires a Unicode font such as Arial Unicode MS). Better yet, you can just change the sequence "~~" to the ogonek, so that you can apply it after any vowel. The same can be done for other combining diacritics such as accents. Obviously, this approach works only in Word and will not apply to other programs (unless they happen to have their own AutoCorrect feature,which would have to be configured separately). On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > Thanks to Bryan we have an IPA keyboard for Windows minus Word. ?I have a complementary Siouan keyboard that works only with Word as far as I know and will attach it here. ?The symbol set I'm attaching is non-IPA, but it's the one commonly used by Siouanists. > > This Siouan keyboard for Word takes advantage of the fact that Word uses two different sets of commands using the ALT key to send identical instructions to the program. ?I have merely reduced these to a single set of ALT commands and then used the other set to send phonetic characters to the text. > > Specifically, if you hold down the ALT key while typing various letter keys, you get the various Word menus, e.g., ALT-i gives you the ?insertion? menu, and ALT-o gives you the ?formatting? menu, etc. ?But pressing the ALT key and then pressing the ?i? or ?o? keys afterward gives exactly the same two menus. ?But it turns out that Word is using two different code strings to send these identical commands. ?So, for example, you can hold down ALT and press ?o? to send an accented ??? to your text, but pressing ALT and then pressing ?o? will still display the formatting menu. ?This discovery frees up all the ALT+alphanumeric characters for typing phonetic symbols and doesn?t hamper displaying the menus in Word at all. ?I have programmed my keyboard to produce all the phonetic characters I need by holding down ALT and pressing mnemonic alphanumeric keys at the same time. ?In short, using the attached normal.dot file: > ALT-Vowel gives the accented vowel. > ALT-SHIFT-vowel gives the nasal vowel > ALT-consonant gives the various modified consonants. > > I have attached a key to using my ALT combinations. > > I have also attached the normal.dot file that will program Word to produce the symbols. ?It works with Windows XP and Vista, but I have not tested it with Windows 7 or any of the earlier operating systems. ?I have no idea if it would work for Word running under Apple?s DOS. ?What I recommend is that you locate your normal.dot file and rename it xnormal.dot. ?Then copy the attached normal.dot to the same directory on your own PC. ?This will allow you to try out my keyboard program while retaining the ability to delete it if you don?t like it and go back to your own normal.dot later. ?You will most likely find normal.dot in the following directory: > C:\Documents and Settings\your name\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates. > > You can, of course, customize this file any way you like. > > I have stuck to standard Siouanist and Americanist symbols. ?My feeling is that they have become standard for our discipline. ?While I have nothing against IPA, it does not provide useful symbols for phonology as opposed to phonetics. ?In my considerable experience with European languages, I have found that one has to learn a different phonetic alphabet for every language (and sometimes more than one). ?We do not do students a favor by implying that they only need learn one phonetic alphabet. ?However, using the ALT+i(nsert)+s(ymbol) command and menu, you can reprogram this normal.dot with whatever symbol set you like. > > I originally did this keyboard using the Gentium font, downloadable free from the SIL website. ?You may want to add Gentium to your font collection. ?However, within a given document, you should be able to just switch fonts to any other Unicode set that has all the necessary symbols if you want. ?(Some, especially older, Unicode fonts lack a glottal stop, a j with a h??ek (?) and an ?o? with the ogonek beneath it (?)). ?If you choose not to install Gentium, you might try viewing these symbols in Times New Roman. ?(I simply don?t know what happens if Word calls for a phonetic symbol in a font that isn?t installed.) > > Bob > > From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 25 19:34:07 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:34:07 +0000 Subject: IPA keyboard for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, George. That's a great technique. That @#$% program that keeps changing my i's to I has to be worth something!! Now, does anybody have enough clout with Microsoft to get them to fix Word so that we can type phonetic characters directly into their search boxes? It's a gigantic pain in the a** to have to "select", then "copy" and "paste" any phonetic character I need to search on. Seems to me the same typing conventions I use in text ought to work in the search box, but no such luck. Best, Bob > Thanks Bob! Another option in Word (especially for Mac users, who may not be able to use the Windows keyboard) is to make the AutoCorrect feature work for you instead of against you. For example, you can have it change the sequence "o~" to "o" followed by Alt+0328 (ogonek combining diacritic; requires a Unicode font such as Arial Unicode MS). Better yet, you can just change the sequence "~~" to the ogonek, so that you can apply it after any vowel. The same can be done for other combining diacritics such as accents. Obviously, this approach works only in Word and will not apply to other programs (unless they happen to have their own AutoCorrect feature,which would have to be configured separately). From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 25 20:07:34 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:07:34 +0000 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <007401cc7b7d$dbaf9ef0$930edcd0$@org> Message-ID: Sorry if any of my comment was misinterpreted. I completely agree with you that all previous scholarship should be open to thorough criticism and correction. All I was pointing out was that we linguists hadn't perhaps treated Father Manhart with the proper personal respect when he came to the early conferences. I remember having this same conversation with Carolyn Quintero multiple times. She tended to exercise a gentler hand dealing with the problems with Laflesche's Osage Dictionary (1932) than I did. I felt she should publish a thorough critique of his transcription errors and his inclusion of Omaha vocabulary and grammatical morphemes when he didn't have accurate Osage data. These are serious problems with the '32 Osage dict. and the Osages are well-aware of them, although they tend to criticize the errors as being "Ponca" rather than Omaha because of their geographical proximity to the former. I also did a paper at the Siouan Conference at the Kaw Nation several years back on Dorsey's transcriptions, which were very inconsistent in several important respects. I guess I need to gussie up that paper and the one from Joplin on vowel length and get them into print. Bob ________________ > What I find unreasonable and uncalled for in the way this thread evolved is that the discussion of the inaccuracies in earlier documentary linguistic works is interpreted by some as derogatory. Taking a critical look at the previous works is fundamental to furthering the research on a language. From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 26 00:16:24 2011 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:16:24 +0000 Subject: Siouan symbols in different fonts. Message-ID: The attached Word document gives samples of the characters from the normal.dot I posted in a variety of popular fonts. Several fonts support all of the characters, others only some of them. It is possible that you may have a later version of some of these fonts if you are using a Vista or Windows 7 computer. These samples were typed on my trusty XP desktop. Bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FONT samples.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: FONT samples.doc URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 26 12:48:14 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:48:14 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A26648218257C71@CH1PRD0102MB136.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking IJAL which is really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of the old ones, but I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the 'designated' library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible shame. If you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would be grateful. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem wrote: > From: De Reuse, Willem > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > My two cents regarding all this are > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number > 2, April 2004. > > Willem de Reuse > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry > inquiry) > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is > very difficult to see in the small print and the second > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > interested to know how much of the data you consider to be > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have > had their doubts about these items, but is there really that > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > wrote: > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry inquiry) > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > Right! > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > decision > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > especially at > > his advanced age. > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have > put a > > lot of effort into > > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, > also > > re-editing it at an > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only > thing > > around for a long time. > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in > making > > the first edition available to the public! I was > mainly > > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary > in > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest > attempt > > to make corrections based on research (with speakers > or from > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not > that it > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the > data > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > definitions > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like > Riggs, > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations > of > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is > perfect, > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > constitutes a > > major proportion. > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > inevitably > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is > able to > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > Jan > > > From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Sep 26 13:03:32 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:32 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <285B1A747EEC6404FB85248B@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: Dear Wallace, Thank you for the correction to my schoolboy Latin. No derogatory implication was intended, in fact quite the opposite i.e. I was defending him. Sincerity not sarcasm was the tone. Maybe it's the old problem of England and America being separated by the same language. I also met Manhart sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s on a visit to the (Red Cloud?) school and monastery in Pine Ridge where I stayed a few days and had many conversations with him. He was at the time fairly frail I thought and I thought it was rather heroic of him to have undertaken the job again, which is why I mentioned the 'advanced age'. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Wallace Chafe wrote: > From: Wallace Chafe > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 21:03 > I met Paul Manhart at the BAE in the > early 1960s, and I feel that his reputation needs a little > polishing at this point. He was a serious individual who > realized, much to his credit, that the huge amount of > material left behind by Buechel should be made generally > available. He knew he was not a linguist, but he went ahead > and worked hard on doing what he could. I'm not sure why he > didn't receive more help with the second edition, but I > wouldn't blame him or his "advanced age" for its > deficiencies. Rather, he should be celebrated for passing on > to us Buechel's remarkable heritage. Saying "De mortuis nil > nisi bonum" (I believe the word is "nil") suggests a > repressed desire to be derogatory, which I think is uncalled > for. > > That's my two cents worth. > Wally > From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Mon Sep 26 14:10:12 2011 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:10:12 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <1317041294.13587.YahooMailClassic@web29510.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree, Bruce - it's made things increasingly difficult for Americanists in the UK. Let's hope they haven't trashed them. Anthony >>> shokooh Ingham 26/09/2011 13:48 >>> Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking IJAL which is really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of the old ones, but I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the 'designated' library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible shame. If you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would be grateful. Bruce --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem wrote: > From: De Reuse, Willem > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > My two cents regarding all this are > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number > 2, April 2004. > > Willem de Reuse > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry > inquiry) > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use of dots > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is > very difficult to see in the small print and the second > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > interested to know how much of the data you consider to be > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious to put > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have > had their doubts about these items, but is there really that > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say? > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > wrote: > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry inquiry) > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > Right! > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > decision > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > especially at > > his advanced age. > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have > put a > > lot of effort into > > > that work with the meager facilities that he had, > also > > re-editing it at an > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only > thing > > around for a long time. > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in > making > > the first edition available to the public! I was > mainly > > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary > in > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest > attempt > > to make corrections based on research (with speakers > or from > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not > that it > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the > data > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > definitions > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like > Riggs, > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations > of > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is > perfect, > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > constitutes a > > major proportion. > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > inevitably > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is > able to > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > Jan > > > Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful and distinctive higher education provider. ?Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2011 the third time in five years ?Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part time, first & foundation degrees) ?Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' Personal Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full English public universities) ?Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback (National Student Survey 2011, 93 full English public universities) ?Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' ?Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells, Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and business communications during staff absence. ----------------------------------------------------- From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Tue Sep 27 18:14:04 2011 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:14:04 +0100 Subject: Manhart editing In-Reply-To: <4E8095D2.6AA4.00A6.0@edgehill.ac.uk> Message-ID: I wish I knew. I haven't been able to find out Bruce --- On Mon, 26/9/11, Anthony Grant wrote: > From: Anthony Grant > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Date: Monday, 26 September, 2011, 15:10 > I agree, Bruce - it's made things > increasingly difficult for > Americanists in the UK. Let's hope they haven't > trashed them. > > Anthony > > > > >>> shokooh Ingham > 26/09/2011 13:48 >>> > Thanks Willem. Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking > IJAL which is > really short sighted of them. They've even got rid of > the old ones, but > I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the > 'designated' > library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible > shame. If > you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would > be grateful. > Bruce > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem > wrote: > > > From: De Reuse, Willem > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43 > > My two cents regarding all this are > > in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, > Number > > 2, April 2004. > > > > Willem de Reuse > > ________________________________________ > > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] > > on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK] > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > polyandry > > inquiry) > > > > Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of > > republishing was to make a more visually readable > dictionary > > using modern technology. Buechel/Manhart's use > of dots > > and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants > is > > very difficult to see in the small print and the > second > > edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be > > interested to know how much of the data you consider > to be > > inaccurate. There are words which look dubious > to put > > it mildly, purely because of their morphology and > most > > learners with a reasonable basis in the language will > have > > had their doubts about these items, but is there > really that > > much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you > say? > > Bruce > > > > --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich > > wrote: > > > > > From: Jan Ullrich > > > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan > > polyandry inquiry) > > > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > > > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29 > > > > De mortuis non nisi bonum. > > > > > > > > > Right! > > > My comment was more about the alive who made the > > decision > > > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition, > > especially at > > > his advanced age. > > > > > > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to > have > > put a > > > lot of effort into > > > > that work with the meager facilities that he > had, > > also > > > re-editing it at an > > > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the > only > > thing > > > around for a long time. > > > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it. > > > > > > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution > in > > making > > > the first edition available to the public! I was > > mainly > > > referring to the decision to re-publish the > dictionary > > in > > > the way it was done, i.e. without even the > slightest > > attempt > > > to make corrections based on research (with > speakers > > or from > > > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is > not > > that it > > > doesn't include valuable data, but that without > much > > > research it is impossible to tell which parts of > the > > data > > > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and > > definitions > > > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, > like > > Riggs, > > > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic > translations > > of > > > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary > is > > perfect, > > > but in this dictionary the problematic data > > constitutes a > > > major proportion. > > > So, much of the learning from the dictionary > > inevitably > > > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one > is > > able to > > > figure out which parts are incorrect. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, > Edge Hill > University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, > successful > and distinctive higher education provider. > > ?Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the > Year 2011 the > third time in five years > ?Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher > Education > Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part > time, first & > foundation degrees) > ?Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' > Personal > Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full > English public > universities) > ?Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback > (National Student Survey > 2011, 93 full English public universities) > ?Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in > 'The Sunday Times > Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010' > ?Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 > inspection cells, > Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report > 12/5/2011 > > ----------------------------------------------------- > This message is private and confidential. If you have > received this > message in error, please notify the sender and remove it > from your > system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of > the author > and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or > associated > companies. Edge Hill University may monitor email > traffic data and also > the content of email for the purposes of security and > business > communications during staff absence. > > ----------------------------------------------------- >