Tutelo verb 'go'

[David Kaufman]

I'll take a copy.

Dave

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Rankin, Robert L. <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

>  Not off topic as far as I'm concerned.  Every little bit of information
> about the Ft. Christanna vocab helps.  I have a .pdf of the "improved"
> version of my paper on the Siouan parts of that vocab. if anyone would like
> a copy.
>
> Bob
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David
> costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:36 AM
> *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Tutelo verb 'go'
>
>   This is perhaps off topic, but on the subject of the Fort Christanna
> Saponi vocabulary, Rich Rhodes and I discussed the Algonquian and Iroquoian
> numerals in that wordlist in our paper on Proto-Algonquian numbers in the
> Frank Siebert festschrift several years ago. The Iroquoian words look like
> some relative of Tuscarora while the Algonquian words look exactly like
> what you'd expect for a dialect that was transitional between Virginia
> Algonquian and North Carolina Algonquian.
>
> Dave Costa
>   ------------------------------
> From: David Kaufman <dvkanth2010 at GMAIL.COM>
> Sent: ‎6/‎15/‎2013 8:51 AM
> To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> Subject: Re: Tutelo verb 'go'
>
>  Bob,
>
> Thanks for your paper; it certainly clarifies the issue for Tutelo.
>
> It is of course peripheral to this List, but Atakapa and Chitimacha do
> seem to have this oddity of patient pronouns used for motion verbs like
> 'go', and this could also be due to contact in the region (the subject of
> my dissertation).  It will require more analysis.
>
> I thought Tutelo may have somehow been doing something similar, but
> apparently not.
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Rankin, Robert L. <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Sorry folks.  I didn't realize this was a Siouan list query.  I just
>> neglected to look at the return address. It doesn't matter except that my
>> attachment may not have been available.  I don't recall trying attachments
>> on the U. of Nebraska server.  If anyone had a problem retrieving the
>> paper, let me know and I'll send it in a personal email.  Otherwise, just
>> read the paper.  It supersedes Giulia's discussion, although I agree with
>> her that there was a reinterpretation in the pronominal prefix system.  As
>> you'll see, the reinterpretation involved R-class and H-class verb stems.
>> The phonologically irregular allomorphs of the actor pronominals were lost
>> in those classes of verb and disambiguation of the results was achieved (as
>> in many languages -- French for example) by substituting the independent
>> pronominals.  Surprise, surprise.  There is little doubt about the source,
>> and Giulia may be right that it had something to do with the pidgin status
>> of some Virginia Siouan dialects.  We can't know for sure because the trade
>> language isn't sufficiently attested.  It may not be attested at all unless
>> the Ft. Christana Saponi vocabulary is an example (it includes Algonquian
>> vocab. along with garbled Tutelo)
>>
>>  > The independent/disjunctive first person pronoun in Tutelo is wi:ma
>> (Oliverio p. 148); wi- is the stative/dative/patient first person pronoun
>> (Oliverio p. 71); wa- is the first person actor pronoun (Oliverio p. 64).
>>
>>  No, wi:ma is a compound form.  The original 1st person disjunctive prn.
>> is **wiɁe*.  It collapses to *wie* in some languages and *wi**: *(long
>> vowel) in others -- like Tutelo.  The independent pronouns are ALL
>> derived from the patient pronominals throughout Siouan, but they are NOT
>> patients by role.  Read the paper and you'll see how I, at least, analyze
>> Tutelo restructuring.  They just lost the* b/p* 1st person and the* š*2nd person agent/actor pronominals.  1st person wa- has nothing to do with
>> it.  It's never used with R-stems, and 'go' is an R-stem.  The
>> reanalysis results in large part from simple phonology.  You can pretty
>> much ignore any discussion of active/stative semantics in Giulia's
>> description.
>>
>> But pay attention to Marianne too.
>>
>> I can't say anything about Atakapa or Chitimacha or whatever except that
>> they don't have anything to do with Tutelo.  I talk about Biloxi and Ofo in
>> the paper.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> The sentences Oliverio (p. 63) gives are as follows: wi-le:-ta i-athi: =
>> 1sgP-go-POT DIR-house 'I am going to the house'; wi-hi:-ok hiyaNka =
>> 1sgP-arrive--past2 sleep 'I came, he was asleep.'  Note that both 'go' and
>> 'come/arrive' use the first person patient/stative prefix.  There is an
>> interesting quote by Oliverio: "...it seems that some reinterpretation of
>> the active/stative system took place, probably as a result of the limited
>> use of the language and semi-fluency of most speakers at the time of
>> collection, and from the probable use of Tutelo as a trade language.  Thus
>> for instance some verbs of motion, denoting events performed, effected, and
>> instigated, and typically controlled, by the speaker, take stative
>> pronominal prefixes, not the expected active morphology" (p. 62).
>>
>> So, at least according to Oliverio and her consultants, her 'patient' or
>> 'stative' prefixes are used for 'go, come.'
>>
>> As I said, a similar phenomenon seems to occur in Atakapa with 'go', and
>> Danny Hieber, who works on Chitimacha, has discovered the same phenomenon
>> with Chitimacha 'go.'
>>
>> So it looks like this deserves further study, not only in Tutelo, but in
>> other languages (e.g., Atakapa, Chitimacha) that seem to share a similar
>> phenomenon.  Perhaps Marianne is right; maybe the terminology is the
>> problem - I'm not sure.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Rankin, Robert L. <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
> [The entire original message is not included.]
>



-- 
David Kaufman, Ph.C.
University of Kansas
Linguistic Anthropology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130615/cf31a440/attachment.html>