Ablaut et al

[shokooh Ingham]

Very enlightening Bob,
Thanks
Bruce

--- On Thu, 1/9/11, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at KU.EDU> wrote:

> From: Rankin, Robert L <rankin at KU.EDU>
> 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