Tutelo verb 'go'

[Marianne Mithun]

Me too, please!

Marianne

--On Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:23 AM +0000 "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
> 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 *wi?e.  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 ? 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.]