From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Wed Sep 4 20:13:36 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:13:36 -0500 Subject: Aho! In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369CB82E7626@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: I know you have your mind set on "jump on ~ in" something, but how about some other sentences to see how it plays out. Mark's material below is interesting. Now I wonder how it plays out in Kaw, Osage? Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ wát^anwe" [wa + a + t^ánwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ wót^amwe [wa + u + t^ánwe]. What says the Dhegiha folks? Does all the rest of the Dhegiha languages follow suit with the Omaha? Can Iren and Johannes state if the Hochank follow with the Jiwere? Or with the Dhegiha? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:23 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Yep, the term “wonayin” helps! For the life of me I couldn’t think of a definite locative that worked with “wa-“. Well, that “wa-“ has the idea of “something” and the one I’m talking about refers to “them.” However as you mentioned, “wa-“ is so complicated we don’t know if that is the same “wa-“ or not LOL. I’ve been getting the “jump” information from Mark Awakuni-Swetland. He and I have been emailing back and forth for the past week or so. He’s graciously shared some of his digitized material with me. Here’s a pic of his entry: As far as those books, I got the proofs last week. I still need to double-check them although I suspect there won’t be any issues if they just cut/pasted the information I sent them J. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:29 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD; Jill Greer; Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Subject: Re: Aho! See if the entries below [on; in~within] helps: ** in them; on them prn/prep.prf. wó-... in us; on us prn/prep.prf. wówa-...(wi). [NOTE: wa- + u- = wó-]. The shirt is too tight on them, Wónayin wóradage ke. The shirt is too tight on us two, Wónayin wówaradage ke. The shirt is too tight on all of us, Wónayin wówaradagewi ke. God put the truth in them, Wakánda mínke wógre ke. God put the truth in us two, Wakánda mínke wówagre ke. God put the truth in all of us, Wakánda mínke wówagrewi ke. There’s a bug on me, Wagrí úngwe ke. There’s several bugs on me, Wagrí úngweñe ke. There’s a bug on you and me, Wagrí wówagwe ke. There’s several bugs on you and me, Wagrí wówagwañe ke. There’s a bug on you, Wagrí urígwe ke. There’s several bugs on you, Wagrí urígwañe ke. There’s a bug on her, Wagrí ugwé ke. There’s several bugs on her, Wagrí ugwañe ke. There’s a bugs on all of us, Wagrí wówagwawi ke. There’s several bugs on us all, Wagrí wówagwanawi ke. There’s a bug on all of you, Wagrí urígwawi ke. There’s several bugs on all of you, Wagrí urígwanawi ke. There’s a bug on them, Wagrí wógwe ke. There’s several bugs on them all, Wagrí wógwañe ke. on; over; upon inseparable prep prf/suf. a-...; ...-da: I jumped on it, Áát^anwe ke [a- + há- + t^anwe]. He left me on it,. Amínbe ke. It goes from that point on,. Gaída waré (ke). The house is on the hill, Chí ahéda aré ke. There ice on the ground, Maháda ñúxe ke. The fleas are pecking on the dogs, Wagríiñe šunk^éñi wégwañe ke. ** on; on there v.t/prep. dáre. [NOTE: ída ~ da (there) + aré (it is)]: Míne dáre ke, It was on me. Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me. Ríre dáre ke, It was on you. Ríre dáreñe ke, They were on you. Aré dáre ke, It was on him. Aré dáreñe ke, They were on him ~ them. Híné dáre ke, It was on you & me. Híné dáreñe ke, They were on you & me. Míne dáre ke, It was on me. Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me. ** be on, on; sticks to adj/v.i. aráha. **SEE: adhere; stick;aráha. There’s a bug on me, Wagrí ánraha ke. There’s one bug on us two, Wagrí iyánki wáwaraha ke. There’s a bug on you, Wagrí aríraha ke. There’s a bug on her, Wagrí aráha ke. There’s a bug on all of us, Wagrí wáwarahawi ke. There’s a bug on you all, Wagrí arírahawi ke. There’s a bug on them 2, Wagrí aráhawi ke. There’s a bug on all of them, Wagrí aráhañe ke. ** be several in, within adj/v.i. ugwé. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s a bug in me, Wagrí úngwe ke. There’s several bugs in me, Wagrí úngweñe ke. There’s a bug in you and me, Wagrí wówagwe ke. There’s several bugs in you and me, Wagrí wówagwañe ke. There’s a bug in you, Wagrí urígwe ke. There’s several bugs in you, Wagrí urígwañe ke. There’s a bug in her, Wagrí ugwé ke. There’s several bugs in her, Wagrí ugwañe ke. There’s a bugs in all of us, Wagrí wówagwawi ke. There’s several bugs in us all, Wagrí wówagwanawi ke. There’s a bug in all of you, Wagrí urígwawi ke. There’s several bugs in all of you, Wagrí urígwanawi ke. There’s a bug in them, Wagrí wógwe ke. There’s several bugs in them all, Wagrí wógwañe ke. ** settle on (surface); be several on ~ around; be some ~ a number of; be numerous, many; pile up; be dense on prep/v.t. édo. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s several bugs on me, Wagrí ándo(ñe) ke. There’s several bugs on us two, Wagrí wéwedo ke. There’s several bugs on you, Wagrí arído ke. There’s several bugs on her, Wagrí edo ke. There’s several bugs on us all, Wagrí wéwedowi ke. There’s several bugs all of you, Wagrí arídowi ke. There's several bugs on them 2, Wagrí wédowi ke. There's several bugs all of them, Wagrí wédoñe ke. ** be exemely numerous on, around; be thick on; lots of on adj/v.i. aráš^òge. **SEE: adhere; stick; thick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s lots of bugs on me, Wagrí ánraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on us two, Wagrí wéwaraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on you, Wagrí aríraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on her, Wagrí raráš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on us all, Wagrí wéwaraš^ògenawi ke. The bugs are thick on you all, Wagrí aríraš^ògenawi ke. There’s lots of bugs on them 2, Wagrí wéraš^ògewi ke. There’s lots of bugs on them all, Wagrí wéraš^ògeñe ke. You say that you have Ponca/ Omaha examples saying "he jumps on them" following a pattern of: a + wa + t^ánwe. Can you give that example, and if need be, we can run I by the list, which has been quiet lately. Somewhere, I have more explaination, but it does not revel itself where it is to be located. Meanwhile, Jill Greer says: it seems more efficient to suggest that (glottal) \ˀ \ works to identify boundaries between morphemes, and other processes related to preserving word meaning rather than at the level of the basic inventory and system of sounds (phonology). (-6) Locatives: a- ‘on, upon, over’, u- ‘in, within, into’, i- ‘at, to, by’ (Whitman 1946:241) These combine with the prefix wa2a- (indefinitely extended object) to make a “heavy” syllable; it has a longer vowel, and usually attracts stress also. Examples of this process were discussed earlier in the section on nominal prefixes. wa: < wa1- + a- ‘on’ wo: < wa1- + u- ‘in’ wi: < wa1- + i- ‘at, to, by’ Hi¸yi¸no| wo-waxoñita¸ rithawe urakhiñe da | ‘Brother| when they tell about this beautiful ceremony| waˀu¸ waruphi | Rire añe na the wonderful work it does| they say it’s You.’ I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”? I don't have an immediate answer for you, as I said, I'm lacking some reference at the moment. However, a difference that I see in the shortened "shúnta (wolf) > shún" in the name Shúnmañikathi (Prairie Wolf), and "máha ~ máyan (land, dirt; earth) > ma-" in terms like "mák^e (cultivate; farm)" is those words begin with a noun, whereas, you are basing your case on a combination of an adjective + verb. There may be and like are such combinations, but the one you propose for the analysis of pink is highly unlikely. PS: What ever became of you book with the llamas and tractors plus the traditional stories we did early in the year? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:35 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! I’ve seen the overwhelming number of examples where wa- is combined with the first vowel. What I was curious about was if this convention changes specifically with the locative u-/a- prefixes. Then again, really haven’t seen any “on them” or “in them” verbs. The reason I’m asking is because it appears that Omaha/Ponca follows the convention of the “them” (wa-) coming after the “on” portion rather than before and I was curious if the same applied here. The Omaha/Ponca example I am referring to says “jump on them.” I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”? I’m not trying to force my theory into the term “sut^axi” but at the same time I don’t understand how there is only one possible contraction type for this. Languages always have exceptions to guidelines (I prefer to use “guideline” rather than “rule” because of those exceptions hehehe). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 PM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! I believe that wathéwe would be the better term, and more along the means that a wild fire is combated. Meanwhile, I commend you for your analytical innovative thinking. Impressive it is! However, typically when the sound "j" is combined with another word, thus loosing its final verb, the "j" (which has no glottal), changes to the sound "ch^" glottal. Please note how this works with the word "shoe" as it is combined to form the word for "moccasin": agúje + ukéñi > agúch^okeñi If "súje" were to combine with "“utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”" the rendered result would be = such^ot^axe. Your logic is without question, it just that the rules of IOM phonics will not stand the test. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:38 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ahh, ok. So if “githewe” uses “gi” as the instrumental part which is “by means of stricking, cutting with axe, by action of wind”, would “wathewe” be a better term since those are pretty specific? Also, I think I have a theory behind the term “sut^axi” (pink)! I found that Dorsey had a term “otaxe/utaxe” which he translated as “to soak through, or to be seen through, on the other side, as writing or grease on thin paper” as well as “to soak through as water through a blanket, or rain through clothing.” He has a glottal stop in there but it looks like it is before the “t” (IE “o^taxe/u^taxe). But still, bear with me J. So what about “sut^axi” being a combination of “suje” and “utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”? Then it would translate as “red being seen through” which would definitely fit the idea of pink since it is a lighter version of red. And no doubt the color would be diluted if it was “seen through” something. What do you think? I remember you saying that term was a mystery J. There was something else I was going to ask you but I forget what it was J. Hope your weekend went well! Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:54 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Remember that "wa-" has many applications. In the "wa-" to which you refer, you are correct, and it would make the term a noun. The "wa-" in use here is the instrumental prefix added to a verb, just as the same is true with "gi". The full entry is: extinguish (with s.t., as a fire or by action of the wind) v.t. githéwe: (I…, héthewe; you…, réthewe; we…, hingíthewewi; they…, githéweñe). Last night we had quite a storm, and the lights were all out (caused by the strong wind), Danáñida hánheda táje pí škúñi náhe ke; dákan bróge githéwe ke. You can use that shovel to put out the fire, Mak^é sé^e ^únna péje réthewešdún ke. Then they will extinguish the fire, Hédan péje githeweñe hñe ke. extinguish (by blowing on); blow out v.t. bothéwe: (I…, habóthewe; you…, rabóthewe; we…, hinbóthewewi; they…, bothéweñe). Will you blow out the lamp (lantern), Wirádakanhin rabóthewe je. extinguish (firebrand) by pushing it into ground, water; punch and make black v.t. wathéwe: (I…, hapáthewe; you…, swáthewe; we…, hinwáthewewi; they…, wathéweñe). From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:24 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Re: Aho! Is wathewe "something black" in that a fire that has been put out leaves charred remains? Would the "githewe" version refer to someone else's fire being put out (IE put out a fire for someone)? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Jimm G. GoodTracks" wrote: Either that or Wathéwe Wan^shíge. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! And one more quick question LOL. Some Otoe-Missouria firefighters recently went out to fight one of the wildfires recently. One of our directors here has asked me to translate something like “fireman” or “firefighter” for them. He wants to have some shirts made for them I think. I didn’t want to accidentally use a NAC term for “fire man” as I understand that is a role during meetings. So what I came up with was: Githewe Wan^shige (extinquish fire person) What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:56 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! It is my impression that the professional linguists consider that the future marker "hñe" is actually a suffix attached to the verb, such as it is in Spanish: Viajo (I travel) > Viajaré (I will travel). Thus, thinking along these same kind of lines, Yes, you could write your verbal statement as you have it - Hinmañita hnye ke - OR even write the whole thing as a single unit -Hinmañitahnye ke. For me, the longer the word, the more likely it'll be misconstrued. Maybe it is our English mindset, whatever! The likelihood of error seems to increase. Thus, I tend to separate what the professionals call suffixes, keeping them as independent units, or sometimes, and only sometimes, adding a hyphen, for the prevention of confussion. An example of the latter, would be such as: Ahéthewe-da gre hñe ke (He is going to return to the Black Hills." At any rate, I believe we are on the same page. As one becomes more familiar with the language, such preferences and liberties should present little difficultiy for the astute. Aréhga je. I have seen "ho/ha; taho/taha ~ hahdo/a" sometimes rendered as "please." For me, sometimes that is a fit, other times, not so much. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:46 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ok. It also sounds like the same thing is going on for “taho/taha” as far as polite commands and/or “let’s.” I’ve had a few people express confusion over this as far as when/how it is used. My tentative investigation in this has led me to think that maybe it would be easier for learners to understand this if it were represented differently on paper (but pronounced the same obviously). For example: Hinmanyi tahnye ke Would become: Hinmanyita hnye ke. And: Hinmanyi taho. Would become: Hinmanyita ho. I’ve spoken with several people and they say the latter examples help them understand what is going on much easier. But before I make a change like this, I’m wanting to explore it a bit more. But if it is simply a case of “-wi” becoming “-ta”, then switching to the latter would be easy. What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:18 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Yes, Rimíngke ke (You're correct). Let me further comment below.... From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:34 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Aho! I’ve got a quick question for the plural “will” since we are on the subject. We may have covered this before but I’m wanting to be sure LOL. I know that the 1st and 2nd future plural replaces –wi with “ta/da”. Hinmanyi tahnye ke (1st person plural) (CORRECT) Ramanyi tahnye ke (2nd person plural) (CORRECT) I am unsure about these: Hinmanyi hnye ke (1st person dual) (UNSURE BUT I THINK IT IS RIGHT!!) Manyi tahnye (3rd person dual) (UNSURE!!) THIRD PERSON DUAL: I already have a note to myself to look for examples from texts, and notes from whatever source. I too wonder about that one. Logically, it should follow suit with FIRST PERS DUAL, since the "-wi" acts in a different capacity. It is like the various uses for the multi-tasking "wa-." If you find examples before me. Let me know. Also, do you know what the “ta” is doing on there? You have in your dictionary “This suffix “-ta” ~ hahda” replaces “-wi” (plural suffix) before another suffix.” Does that mean the “-ta” is a contracted form of “hahda”? If so, what is that? You have it as “anew, renew, return” but I’m doubtful that is the idea here. It was in looking at my dictionary entry that I became dissatisfied with the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no satisfactory example or explanation for THIRD PERSON DUAL. You can be sure that the entry will be revised when I have new information at hand. Meanwhile, avoid using TPD in the future tense or change it to regular TPP. I had a friend to reboot the Skype, so now there is an ICON on the LAP desktop, but it is only the LAP. Not on the desktop of the Desktop. Perhaps, next week, I'll try to give you a buzz on it, or whatever it does to let the other party know they are called. Have you tried to connect with the CAAP files on Satellite via PeggyBank? What is your impression if so? I've heard no more from Saul - whatever that means - as to PB slowing some of the recordings to a more typical speed. I hope all is well up your way J. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17540 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 5 00:36:30 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 00:36:30 +0000 Subject: Aho! In-Reply-To: <8C994D1601B643F9BFCBCDB67899AF79@JGDellLaptop> Message-ID: Guys, I'll try to get around to gathering all this discussion together and digesting it tomorrow or the next day. There's quite a bit to digest. Jill did a paper at the Siouan conference in Lawrence about 15 months ago that covered a lot of this territory. I don't remember the details of it, but maybe she'll jump in. I do remember that Ho Chank has what has been called a single pronoun, written nin, that means both/either 'I' and/or 'you'. I believe that the 1st and 2nd person pronouns here are actually homonyms and that they had two distinct etymological sources. I'll try to figure out the dual/plural pronominal prefixes soon. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jimm G. GoodTracks [jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:13 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Aho! I know you have your mind set on "jump on ~ in" something, but how about some other sentences to see how it plays out. Mark's material below is interesting. Now I wonder how it plays out in Kaw, Osage? Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ wát^anwe" [wa + a + t^ánwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ wót^amwe [wa + u + t^ánwe]. What says the Dhegiha folks? Does all the rest of the Dhegiha languages follow suit with the Omaha? Can Iren and Johannes state if the Hochank follow with the Jiwere? Or with the Dhegiha? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:23 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Yep, the term “wonayin” helps! For the life of me I couldn’t think of a definite locative that worked with “wa-“. Well, that “wa-“ has the idea of “something” and the one I’m talking about refers to “them.” However as you mentioned, “wa-“ is so complicated we don’t know if that is the same “wa-“ or not LOL. I’ve been getting the “jump” information from Mark Awakuni-Swetland. He and I have been emailing back and forth for the past week or so. He’s graciously shared some of his digitized material with me. Here’s a pic of his entry: [to leap on them.jpg] As far as those books, I got the proofs last week. I still need to double-check them although I suspect there won’t be any issues if they just cut/pasted the information I sent them ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:29 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD; Jill Greer; Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Subject: Re: Aho! See if the entries below [on; in~within] helps: ** in them; on them prn/prep.prf. wó-... in us; on us prn/prep.prf. wówa-...(wi). [NOTE: wa- + u- = wó-]. The shirt is too tight on them, Wónayin wóradage ke. The shirt is too tight on us two, Wónayin wówaradage ke. The shirt is too tight on all of us, Wónayin wówaradagewi ke. God put the truth in them, Wakánda mínke wógre ke. God put the truth in us two, Wakánda mínke wówagre ke. God put the truth in all of us, Wakánda mínke wówagrewi ke. There’s a bug on me, Wagrí úngwe ke. There’s several bugs on me, Wagrí úngweñe ke. There’s a bug on you and me, Wagrí wówagwe ke. There’s several bugs on you and me, Wagrí wówagwañe ke. There’s a bug on you, Wagrí urígwe ke. There’s several bugs on you, Wagrí urígwañe ke. There’s a bug on her, Wagrí ugwé ke. There’s several bugs on her, Wagrí ugwañe ke. There’s a bugs on all of us, Wagrí wówagwawi ke. There’s several bugs on us all, Wagrí wówagwanawi ke. There’s a bug on all of you, Wagrí urígwawi ke. There’s several bugs on all of you, Wagrí urígwanawi ke. There’s a bug on them, Wagrí wógwe ke. There’s several bugs on them all, Wagrí wógwañe ke. on; over; upon inseparable prep prf/suf. a-...; ...-da: I jumped on it, Áát^anwe ke [a- + há- + t^anwe]. He left me on it,. Amínbe ke. It goes from that point on,. Gaída waré (ke). The house is on the hill, Chí ahéda aré ke. There ice on the ground, Maháda ñúxe ke. The fleas are pecking on the dogs, Wagríiñe šunk^éñi wégwañe ke. ** on; on there v.t/prep. dáre. [NOTE: ída ~ da (there) + aré (it is)]: Míne dáre ke, It was on me. Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me. Ríre dáre ke, It was on you. Ríre dáreñe ke, They were on you. Aré dáre ke, It was on him. Aré dáreñe ke, They were on him ~ them. Híné dáre ke, It was on you & me. Híné dáreñe ke, They were on you & me. Míne dáre ke, It was on me. Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me. ** be on, on; sticks to adj/v.i. aráha. **SEE: adhere; stick;aráha. There’s a bug on me, Wagrí ánraha ke. There’s one bug on us two, Wagrí iyánki wáwaraha ke. There’s a bug on you, Wagrí aríraha ke. There’s a bug on her, Wagrí aráha ke. There’s a bug on all of us, Wagrí wáwarahawi ke. There’s a bug on you all, Wagrí arírahawi ke. There’s a bug on them 2, Wagrí aráhawi ke. There’s a bug on all of them, Wagrí aráhañe ke. ** be several in, within adj/v.i. ugwé. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s a bug in me, Wagrí úngwe ke. There’s several bugs in me, Wagrí úngweñe ke. There’s a bug in you and me, Wagrí wówagwe ke. There’s several bugs in you and me, Wagrí wówagwañe ke. There’s a bug in you, Wagrí urígwe ke. There’s several bugs in you, Wagrí urígwañe ke. There’s a bug in her, Wagrí ugwé ke. There’s several bugs in her, Wagrí ugwañe ke. There’s a bugs in all of us, Wagrí wówagwawi ke. There’s several bugs in us all, Wagrí wówagwanawi ke. There’s a bug in all of you, Wagrí urígwawi ke. There’s several bugs in all of you, Wagrí urígwanawi ke. There’s a bug in them, Wagrí wógwe ke. There’s several bugs in them all, Wagrí wógwañe ke. ** settle on (surface); be several on ~ around; be some ~ a number of; be numerous, many; pile up; be dense on prep/v.t. édo. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s several bugs on me, Wagrí ándo(ñe) ke. There’s several bugs on us two, Wagrí wéwedo ke. There’s several bugs on you, Wagrí arído ke. There’s several bugs on her, Wagrí edo ke. There’s several bugs on us all, Wagrí wéwedowi ke. There’s several bugs all of you, Wagrí arídowi ke. There's several bugs on them 2, Wagrí wédowi ke. There's several bugs all of them, Wagrí wédoñe ke. ** be exemely numerous on, around; be thick on; lots of on adj/v.i. aráš^òge. **SEE: adhere; stick; thick; ugwé; egwé; dáre. There’s lots of bugs on me, Wagrí ánraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on us two, Wagrí wéwaraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on you, Wagrí aríraš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on her, Wagrí raráš^ògeñe ke. The bugs are thick on us all, Wagrí wéwaraš^ògenawi ke. The bugs are thick on you all, Wagrí aríraš^ògenawi ke. There’s lots of bugs on them 2, Wagrí wéraš^ògewi ke. There’s lots of bugs on them all, Wagrí wéraš^ògeñe ke. You say that you have Ponca/ Omaha examples saying "he jumps on them" following a pattern of: a + wa + t^ánwe. Can you give that example, and if need be, we can run I by the list, which has been quiet lately. Somewhere, I have more explaination, but it does not revel itself where it is to be located. Meanwhile, Jill Greer says: it seems more efficient to suggest that (glottal) \ˀ \ works to identify boundaries between morphemes, and other processes related to preserving word meaning rather than at the level of the basic inventory and system of sounds (phonology). (-6) Locatives: a- ‘on, upon, over’, u- ‘in, within, into’, i- ‘at, to, by’ (Whitman 1946:241) These combine with the prefix wa2a- (indefinitely extended object) to make a “heavy” syllable; it has a longer vowel, and usually attracts stress also. Examples of this process were discussed earlier in the section on nominal prefixes. wa: < wa1- + a- ‘on’ wo: < wa1- + u- ‘in’ wi: < wa1- + i- ‘at, to, by’ Hi¸yi¸no| wo-waxoñita¸ rithawe urakhiñe da | ‘Brother| when they tell about this beautiful ceremony| waˀu¸ waruphi | Rire añe na the wonderful work it does| they say it’s You.’ I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”? I don't have an immediate answer for you, as I said, I'm lacking some reference at the moment. However, a difference that I see in the shortened "shúnta (wolf) > shún" in the name Shúnmañikathi (Prairie Wolf), and "máha ~ máyan (land, dirt; earth) > ma-" in terms like "mák^e (cultivate; farm)" is those words begin with a noun, whereas, you are basing your case on a combination of an adjective + verb. There may be and like are such combinations, but the one you propose for the analysis of pink is highly unlikely. PS: What ever became of you book with the llamas and tractors plus the traditional stories we did early in the year? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:35 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! I’ve seen the overwhelming number of examples where wa- is combined with the first vowel. What I was curious about was if this convention changes specifically with the locative u-/a- prefixes. Then again, really haven’t seen any “on them” or “in them” verbs. The reason I’m asking is because it appears that Omaha/Ponca follows the convention of the “them” (wa-) coming after the “on” portion rather than before and I was curious if the same applied here. The Omaha/Ponca example I am referring to says “jump on them.” I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”? I’m not trying to force my theory into the term “sut^axi” but at the same time I don’t understand how there is only one possible contraction type for this. Languages always have exceptions to guidelines (I prefer to use “guideline” rather than “rule” because of those exceptions hehehe). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 PM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! I believe that wathéwe would be the better term, and more along the means that a wild fire is combated. Meanwhile, I commend you for your analytical innovative thinking. Impressive it is! However, typically when the sound "j" is combined with another word, thus loosing its final verb, the "j" (which has no glottal), changes to the sound "ch^" glottal. Please note how this works with the word "shoe" as it is combined to form the word for "moccasin": agúje + ukéñi > agúch^okeñi If "súje" were to combine with "“utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”" the rendered result would be = such^ot^axe. Your logic is without question, it just that the rules of IOM phonics will not stand the test. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:38 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ahh, ok. So if “githewe” uses “gi” as the instrumental part which is “by means of stricking, cutting with axe, by action of wind”, would “wathewe” be a better term since those are pretty specific? Also, I think I have a theory behind the term “sut^axi” (pink)! I found that Dorsey had a term “otaxe/utaxe” which he translated as “to soak through, or to be seen through, on the other side, as writing or grease on thin paper” as well as “to soak through as water through a blanket, or rain through clothing.” He has a glottal stop in there but it looks like it is before the “t” (IE “o^taxe/u^taxe). But still, bear with me ☺. So what about “sut^axi” being a combination of “suje” and “utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”? Then it would translate as “red being seen through” which would definitely fit the idea of pink since it is a lighter version of red. And no doubt the color would be diluted if it was “seen through” something. What do you think? I remember you saying that term was a mystery ☺. There was something else I was going to ask you but I forget what it was ☺. Hope your weekend went well! Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:54 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Remember that "wa-" has many applications. In the "wa-" to which you refer, you are correct, and it would make the term a noun. The "wa-" in use here is the instrumental prefix added to a verb, just as the same is true with "gi". The full entry is: extinguish (with s.t., as a fire or by action of the wind) v.t. githéwe: (I…, héthewe; you…, réthewe; we…, hingíthewewi; they…, githéweñe). Last night we had quite a storm, and the lights were all out (caused by the strong wind), Danáñida hánheda táje pí škúñi náhe ke; dákan bróge githéwe ke. You can use that shovel to put out the fire, Mak^é sé^e ^únna péje réthewešdún ke. Then they will extinguish the fire, Hédan péje githeweñe hñe ke. extinguish (by blowing on); blow out v.t. bothéwe: (I…, habóthewe; you…, rabóthewe; we…, hinbóthewewi; they…, bothéweñe). Will you blow out the lamp (lantern), Wirádakanhin rabóthewe je. extinguish (firebrand) by pushing it into ground, water; punch and make black v.t. wathéwe: (I…, hapáthewe; you…, swáthewe; we…, hinwáthewewi; they…, wathéweñe). From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:24 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Re: Aho! Is wathewe "something black" in that a fire that has been put out leaves charred remains? Would the "githewe" version refer to someone else's fire being put out (IE put out a fire for someone)? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Jimm G. GoodTracks" > wrote: Either that or Wathéwe Wan^shíge. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! And one more quick question LOL. Some Otoe-Missouria firefighters recently went out to fight one of the wildfires recently. One of our directors here has asked me to translate something like “fireman” or “firefighter” for them. He wants to have some shirts made for them I think. I didn’t want to accidentally use a NAC term for “fire man” as I understand that is a role during meetings. So what I came up with was: Githewe Wan^shige (extinquish fire person) What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:56 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! It is my impression that the professional linguists consider that the future marker "hñe" is actually a suffix attached to the verb, such as it is in Spanish: Viajo (I travel) > Viajaré (I will travel). Thus, thinking along these same kind of lines, Yes, you could write your verbal statement as you have it - Hinmañita hnye ke - OR even write the whole thing as a single unit -Hinmañitahnye ke. For me, the longer the word, the more likely it'll be misconstrued. Maybe it is our English mindset, whatever! The likelihood of error seems to increase. Thus, I tend to separate what the professionals call suffixes, keeping them as independent units, or sometimes, and only sometimes, adding a hyphen, for the prevention of confussion. An example of the latter, would be such as: Ahéthewe-da gre hñe ke (He is going to return to the Black Hills." At any rate, I believe we are on the same page. As one becomes more familiar with the language, such preferences and liberties should present little difficultiy for the astute. Aréhga je. I have seen "ho/ha; taho/taha ~ hahdo/a" sometimes rendered as "please." For me, sometimes that is a fit, other times, not so much. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:46 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ok. It also sounds like the same thing is going on for “taho/taha” as far as polite commands and/or “let’s.” I’ve had a few people express confusion over this as far as when/how it is used. My tentative investigation in this has led me to think that maybe it would be easier for learners to understand this if it were represented differently on paper (but pronounced the same obviously). For example: Hinmanyi tahnye ke Would become: Hinmanyita hnye ke. And: Hinmanyi taho. Would become: Hinmanyita ho. I’ve spoken with several people and they say the latter examples help them understand what is going on much easier. But before I make a change like this, I’m wanting to explore it a bit more. But if it is simply a case of “-wi” becoming “-ta”, then switching to the latter would be easy. What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:18 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Yes, Rimíngke ke (You're correct). Let me further comment below.... From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:34 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Aho! I’ve got a quick question for the plural “will” since we are on the subject. We may have covered this before but I’m wanting to be sure LOL. I know that the 1st and 2nd future plural replaces –wi with “ta/da”. Hinmanyi tahnye ke (1st person plural) (CORRECT) Ramanyi tahnye ke (2nd person plural) (CORRECT) I am unsure about these: Hinmanyi hnye ke (1st person dual) (UNSURE BUT I THINK IT IS RIGHT!!) Manyi tahnye (3rd person dual) (UNSURE!!) THIRD PERSON DUAL: I already have a note to myself to look for examples from texts, and notes from whatever source. I too wonder about that one. Logically, it should follow suit with FIRST PERS DUAL, since the "-wi" acts in a different capacity. It is like the various uses for the multi-tasking "wa-." If you find examples before me. Let me know. Also, do you know what the “ta” is doing on there? You have in your dictionary “This suffix “-ta” ~ hahda” replaces “-wi” (plural suffix) before another suffix.” Does that mean the “-ta” is a contracted form of “hahda”? If so, what is that? You have it as “anew, renew, return” but I’m doubtful that is the idea here. It was in looking at my dictionary entry that I became dissatisfied with the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no satisfactory example or explanation for THIRD PERSON DUAL. You can be sure that the entry will be revised when I have new information at hand. Meanwhile, avoid using TPD in the future tense or change it to regular TPP. I had a friend to reboot the Skype, so now there is an ICON on the LAP desktop, but it is only the LAP. Not on the desktop of the Desktop. Perhaps, next week, I'll try to give you a buzz on it, or whatever it does to let the other party know they are called. Have you tried to connect with the CAAP files on Satellite via PeggyBank? What is your impression if so? I've heard no more from Saul - whatever that means - as to PB slowing some of the recordings to a more typical speed. I hope all is well up your way ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17540 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 5 11:17:03 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:17:03 -0500 Subject: Fw: Press Release: Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston Workday Sept 14 Message-ID: From: Stephen & Lori McAlister Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:26 AM To: 'Lori McAlister' Subject: Press Release: Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston Workday Sept 14 PRESS RELEASE: IMMEDIATE 5 September 2013; Lori McAlister, Media Contact for The Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston, 402-802-2099 or mcalisters at windstream.net WORKDAY AT HISTORIC BUILDING IN BARNESTON A workday is scheduled to winterize the historic transitional building associated with the Otoe-Missouria Indian Reservation in Barneston on Saturday, September 14 from 9:00 am to 12 noon. All interested persons are welcome to participate. Between 1855 and 1881, the Big Blue Reservation in south Gage County was home to about 600 Otoe-Missouria. The central hub of the reservation was a trading post operated by Frances M. and Mary J. Barnes. After the tribal community removed to Red Rock, Oklahoma, the village of Barneston grew up around this enterprise. While the area was yet a reservation, sketches illustrate a mix of dwellings including of earth lodges, wikiups and wood frame buildings. One of the most notable structures was the 3-story Indian Mission School built in 1874-1875. It served as many as 30 pupils from as far away as six miles. The iconic, black and white photograph of the school remains the signature historic image associated with Barneston today. Precisely what happened to this building remains somewhat of a mystery. There is another old image showing the building being dismantled, but there is some question as to whether it was taken down completely or whether a portion of it was actually converted into a private home. Local stories credit the now two-story building as all that remains of the Indian Mission School. It most certainly is a significant structure in the history of the area and as a transitional building associated with the mission school, it is one of the few physical links we have to the story of the Big Blue Reservation. The building was saved from destruction by a group of local citizens in 1986 and moved from its original site to the corner it now occupies one block east of the Barneston Park. In 1999, the ownership of the building was assumed by the Gage County Heritage Preservation Group. Now, a newly formed independent non-profit organization, The Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston, will take on stewardship of the building and the story it represents. Matthew Jones, Lori McAlister, Kathy Paul and Laureen Riedesel make up the founding board. "This is a time for gathering partners and making plans with people from Barneston, from among the Otoe-Missouria and agencies like The Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs and the Nebraska State Historical Society," said McAlister. "This slice of history belongs to native and white people alike." The workday is designed to provide an opportunity for assessing the site as well as simple cleaning, securing loose siding and covering holes. A large scale repair of the structure is in the plans along with program development and fund-raising. Following the workday, participants are invited to continue the conversation over lunch at the Subway in Wymore. If you are interested in being part of this effort or would like to find out more, please contact board member, Lori McAlister at 402-802-2099 or mcalisters at windstream.net. Lori & Stephen McAlister 1811 Sumner Street Lincoln, NE 68502 Hm 402.742.0477 Lori cell 402.802.2099 Stephen cell 402.802.2133 mcalisters at windstream.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19919 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Poster Workday 2013_300.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3238334 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 7 10:25:47 2013 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:25:47 +0100 Subject: testing In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC87@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ________________________________ testing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 7 20:43:13 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 20:43:13 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. Message-ID: > First, in my experience with Omaha, I believe that for verbs that begin with u- followed by another syllable, the u- is pretty much always the locative prefix. Some of these verbs are very old and have become “generalized” so that it may be hard to see the “in” sense of the u-. But it should originally be there. This is true of all four “locative” prefixes in all the Siouan languages. The fact that the set is found in every Siouan language means that these prefixes are over 3000 years old. It is not surprising that they have lost their original meaning in many cases. This is discussed for Dakotan in Boas and Deloria. > The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing “whatchacome” wa-. I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-‘s. I’ve always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though. It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like ‘us’ and ‘(animate) them’ would be a very natural development for a “whatchacome” wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object. I think the ‘us’ morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be. It often seems to be associated with another –a- that leaves it long. Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question. I’ve also heard that Hochunk has preserved a more complicated conjugation pattern that is probably more like that of the original language, and perhaps Otoe-Missouria did likewise? It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, Personally, I’d be surprised to find such a pattern preserved on only one language with no trace left in any of the others unless that language formed a unique subgroup within the language family (like Mandan does, for example). There are some peculiarities of Chiwere and Hochunk that are shared and therefore likely retentions. Among these is the special 3rd plural suffix. Mandan has -kere ‘3pl, Hochunk has –ire ‘3pl’, Chiwere has -(a)ñe ‘3pl’, and Tutelo has -hele• ‘3pl’. And although there is disagreement about parts of this enclitic, the set strongly suggests that there was some sort of 3pl subject marker. > But while I mentioned that my gut tells me there is no real difference [in the meanings of wa- and wa- -- RLR], I still wonder if there is a difference and if there is a definite THEM if it would follow your pattern of coming after the locative vowel prefix. That would be surprising. >manyi – he/she/it walks manyiwi – they-dual walk manyinye – they-plural walk Older sources don’t list this form. Lack in older sources could stem from several problems. Older grammarians lacked linguistic training and therefore expected Native languages to have the same categories as European languages. Exceptions to this were sometimes simply excised as “illogical.” > Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the ‘I’ form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard ‘we’ form. (I’m going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.) That would be surprising too. The form without –(a)wi should already be ‘inclusive’ as it is in the other languages. I don’t know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb. I could be corrected on this though. > Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi. The elements are the same; it’s only the meanings that are different. I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from –api. I don’t see a difference in meaning really. It means ‘pluralizer’ throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Maybe you’re talking about the 3sg use of –abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called ‘proximate vs. obviative’. I guess I’d consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer. But, again, I could be corrected on this. >Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ wát^anwe" [wa + a + t^ánwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ wót^amwe [wa + u + t^ánwe]. That makes perfect sense to me. It’s the normal meaning and order for the a- and o- locatives. I don’t see a problem here, but maybe I didn’t get one of the messages in the sequence. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Sat Sep 7 21:48:12 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 14:48:12 -0700 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370B9FD@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave > It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sat Sep 7 23:09:58 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:09:58 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 8 13:13:33 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB10@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 14:50:01 2013 From: dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET (Darla Spencer) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:50:01 -0400 Subject: Class in NA linguistics Message-ID: Hi all, I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. Thanks, Darla Spencer Sent from my iPad From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 14:58:02 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:58:02 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <1f742c739527483e99829a40e550a88c@DB3PR06MB155.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from ‘mirror-glass’ in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saponi360 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 8 14:46:17 2013 From: saponi360 at yahoo.com (Scott Collins) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 07:46:17 -0700 Subject: Help on Explaining 'issippi' Message-ID: Old names for the river include "Clinch's River" and "Pelisipi River" (and variant spellings such as "Pelisippi" and "Pellissippi").[1] The name Pellissippi that appears on some early maps is said to have been the Cherokees' name for the river and is said to mean "winding waters" in the Cherokee language.[2] [2] "The Pellissippi State Story 1974-1998". Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved July 24, 2013. Note: The Cherokee origin of "Pellissippi" is questionable, as there is no “P” sound in the Cherokee syllabary (D. Ray Smith. "View of the Bear Creek Valley". Retrieved July 24, 2013.).   I had looked in the name Mosopelea-sippi or Mosopeleacipi, a name the Indians called the Ohio River. This ending portion of the words used for river names is what I have been wondering about. The above mention of the old Indian name for the Clinch River is Pelisipi/Pelissippi/Pellissippi. When I first saw this I knew it was not a Cherokee name or word based on my research on the Mosopelea-sippi name and the possible connection to Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Algonquin) and/or (the Shawnee place names for rivers). Kis-ke-pi-la-se-pe ( another name for the Ohio River) Other River Names with same endings: Mississippi Shipakicipi Misseouscipi The Ohio River (Seneca: ohi:yó) (Shawnee: Pelewathiipi or Spelewathiipi);  In seeing a similarity with Pelewathiipi and Pelisipi/Pelissippi I am wondering what this means and whether it was a generic type of term or perhaps a descriptive term. Obviously the Clinch River isn't the same as the Ohio River so I'm curious as to how the Cherokee began to use this name for the Clinch. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Clip_of_Franquelin's_map_of_Louisiana_1684.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 365914 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Sep 8 16:37:39 2013 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:37:39 +0000 Subject: Help on Explaining 'issippi' In-Reply-To: <1378651577.36574.YahooMailNeo@web181406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is Algonquian for RIVER. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Scott Collins wrote: Old names for the river include "Clinch's River" and "Pelisipi River" (and variant spellings such as "Pelisippi" and "Pellissippi").[1] The name Pellissippi that appears on some early maps is said to have been the Cherokees' name for the river and is said to mean "winding waters" in the Cherokee language.[2] [2] "The Pellissippi State Story 1974-1998". Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved July 24, 2013. Note: The Cherokee origin of "Pellissippi" is questionable, as there is no “P” sound in the Cherokee syllabary (D. Ray Smith. "View of the Bear Creek Valley". Retrieved July 24, 2013.). I had looked in the name Mosopelea-sippi or Mosopeleacipi, a name the Indians called the Ohio River. This ending portion of the words used for river names is what I have been wondering about. The above mention of the old Indian name for the Clinch River is Pelisipi/Pelissippi/Pellissippi. When I first saw this I knew it was not a Cherokee name or word based on my research on the Mosopelea-sippi name and the possible connection to Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Algonquin) and/or (the Shawnee place names for rivers). Kis-ke-pi-la-se-pe ( another name for the Ohio River) Other River Names with same endings: Mississippi Shipakicipi Misseouscipi The Ohio River (Seneca: ohi:yó) (Shawnee: Pelewathiipi or Spelewathiipi); In seeing a similarity with Pelewathiipi and Pelisipi/Pelissippi I am wondering what this means and whether it was a generic type of term or perhaps a descriptive term. Obviously the Clinch River isn't the same as the Ohio River so I'm curious as to how the Cherokee began to use this name for the Clinch. 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 Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 8 17:08:51 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:08:51 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB63@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think there may be a borrowed Lakota form for 'to baptise', if I correctly recall a 1950s article by Voegelin and Hymes. Thanks for the [elkar] form - maybe it explains the appeal of Basque to Dutch scholars such as Rudolf de Rijk and Peter Bakker. : ) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 15:58 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mckay020 at UMN.EDU Sun Sep 8 18:16:20 2013 From: mckay020 at UMN.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?Q8yjYcaedGUgTWHMgXph?=) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:16:20 -0500 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: <732456D4-4018-4E7F-82B7-EE207B65DC20@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. -neil On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer wrote: > Hi all, > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. > Thanks, > Darla Spencer > > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 18:21:54 2013 From: dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET (Darla Spencer) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:21:54 -0400 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neil, Thanks very much! Darla Darla Spencer, RPA 1526 Autumn Road Charleston, WV 25314 (304) 561-4753 From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of C?a?te Ma´za Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 2:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Class in NA linguistics Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. -neil On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer wrote: > Hi all, > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. > Thanks, > Darla Spencer > > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Sun Sep 8 19:01:56 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:01:56 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB63@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: /oglasin/ would be the vertitive (?) form of okasin, 'to look into', right? But then what is the /mi/? Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 9:58 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 8 21:15:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:15:35 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to “dabble” in the various languages. It’s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native “look” to them. mitákopa, mąčgú, etc. ‘bow’, as in ‘bow-and-arrow’, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagmų́za, wadwą́, wičawą́, etc. ‘squash, pumpkin’ is a loan. wagmiza, wamnáheza, etc. ‘corn’ are loan adaptations, based on ‘squash’. hǫmnį́ke, hǫblį́ge, etc. ‘beans’ is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ‘long knives’ and ‘fire water’ terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the saganaš, šągláša, sáznak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha gðą́•ðe, lą́•ðe, lą́•ye, etc. terms for ‘big’ are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kkáwa, kkawáye, etc. ‘horse’ terms are loans from Spanish. othų́we, ttą́mą, htą́wą, etc. ‘town, band, settlement, etc.’ are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. šą́kka ‘nine’ is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don’t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ‘trap’ for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, šw, šm sorts of things. I don’t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey’s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can’t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don’t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven’t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. Nį or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn’t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey’s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 22:38:28 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:38:28 -0700 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, I know you and John probably told me about this 20 years ago, but which Siouan language is mitákopa from? That one's pretty blatant, since it's all over Algonquian and it has a clear etymology ("wood string") in that family. I suspect that "nine" word is ultimately borrowed from Algonquian into Siouan (and not the other way around), but its etymology isn't totally clean in Algonquian, either. Rich and I took a stab at that one in our paper for the Frank Siebert festscrift. Also, wasn't Ojibwe ogichidaa 'warrior' borrowed into Dakotan? This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Dave > I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. > > Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to “dabble” in the various languages. It’s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native “look” to them. > > mitákopa, mąčgú, etc. ‘bow’, as in ‘bow-and-arrow’, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. > Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. > wagmų́za, wadwą́, wičawą́, etc. ‘squash, pumpkin’ is a loan. > wagmiza, wamnáheza, etc. ‘corn’ are loan adaptations, based on ‘squash’. > hǫmnį́ke, hǫblį́ge, etc. ‘beans’ is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. > All the various ‘long knives’ and ‘fire water’ terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. > All the saganaš, šągláša, sáznak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. > All the Dhegiha gðą́•ðe, lą́•ðe, lą́•ye, etc. terms for ‘big’ are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. > The various kkáwa, kkawáye, etc. ‘horse’ terms are loans from Spanish. > othų́we, ttą́mą, htą́wą, etc. ‘town, band, settlement, etc.’ are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. > šą́kka ‘nine’ is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. > There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. > > There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don’t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ‘trap’ for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, šw, šm sorts of things. I don’t even know if they are native or not. > > In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey’s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. > > You can’t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don’t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven’t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. > > Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. Nį or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. > > And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn’t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey’s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. > > We still have much to learn. > > Bob > Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. > > Dave > >> It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:49:13 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:49:13 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob: I still feel miyoglas'in is not from 'mirrorglass', since the Lakota word is 4 syllables long, and the English has 3. But you are right, study of loans is just beginning, at least in the Plains and surrounding areas. It seems to me that in general Plains and Prairie languages do not borrow much, for cultural reasons I assume. But as you show, there is more than we think... It is different in the Arctic, where loans from Russian or Chukchi are common, and in the Subarctic where loans from Russian or French are common. In the Southwest we have a layer of old loans from Spanish everywhere, but otherwise very little borrowing from each other... Also I think Dave is the one who noted that Hochank is surrounded by Algonquian, not me. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 4:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to “dabble” in the various languages. It’s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native “look” to them. mitákopa, mąčgú, etc. ‘bow’, as in ‘bow-and-arrow’, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagmų́za, wadwą́, wičawą́, etc. ‘squash, pumpkin’ is a loan. wagmiza, wamnáheza, etc. ‘corn’ are loan adaptations, based on ‘squash’. hǫmnį́ke, hǫblį́ge, etc. ‘beans’ is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ‘long knives’ and ‘fire water’ terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the saganaš, šągláša, sáznak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha gðą́•ðe, lą́•ðe, lą́•ye, etc. terms for ‘big’ are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kkáwa, kkawáye, etc. ‘horse’ terms are loans from Spanish. othų́we, ttą́mą, htą́wą, etc. ‘town, band, settlement, etc.’ are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. šą́kka ‘nine’ is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don’t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ‘trap’ for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, šw, šm sorts of things. I don’t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey’s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can’t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don’t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven’t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. Nį or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn’t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey’s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:51:05 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:51:05 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Ø I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:57:50 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:57:50 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5eb738b4040e44259e1438506ef7baf0@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Ø It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Ø I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 00:25:21 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:25:21 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD20@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Five syll. actually. GL counts as two syllables. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Hi Bob: I still feel miyoglas'in is not from 'mirrorglass', since the Lakota word is 4 syllables long, and the English has 3. But you are right, study of loans is just beginning, at least in the Plains and surrounding areas. It seems to me that in general Plains and Prairie languages do not borrow much, for cultural reasons I assume. But as you show, there is more than we think... It is different in the Arctic, where loans from Russian or Chukchi are common, and in the Subarctic where loans from Russian or French are common. In the Southwest we have a layer of old loans from Spanish everywhere, but otherwise very little borrowing from each other... Also I think Dave is the one who noted that Hochank is surrounded by Algonquian, not me. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 4:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to “dabble” in the various languages. It’s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native “look” to them. mitákopa, mąčgú, etc. ‘bow’, as in ‘bow-and-arrow’, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagmų́za, wadwą́, wičawą́, etc. ‘squash, pumpkin’ is a loan. wagmiza, wamnáheza, etc. ‘corn’ are loan adaptations, based on ‘squash’. hǫmnį́ke, hǫblį́ge, etc. ‘beans’ is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ‘long knives’ and ‘fire water’ terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the saganaš, šągláša, sáznak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha gðą́•ðe, lą́•ðe, lą́•ye, etc. terms for ‘big’ are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kkáwa, kkawáye, etc. ‘horse’ terms are loans from Spanish. othų́we, ttą́mą, htą́wą, etc. ‘town, band, settlement, etc.’ are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. šą́kka ‘nine’ is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don’t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ‘trap’ for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, šw, šm sorts of things. I don’t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey’s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can’t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don’t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven’t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. Nį or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn’t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey’s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 00:44:22 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:44:22 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5eb738b4040e44259e1438506ef7baf0@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: My understanding has always been that Williamson IS Riggs. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Ø It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Ø I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 01:11:29 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:11:29 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bob, I know you and John probably told me about this 20 years ago, but which Siouan language is mitákopa from? That one's pretty blatant, since it's all over Algonquian and it has a clear etymology ("wood string") in that family. That's Dakotan. But all the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages plus Tutelo have some version of this loan, probably from different Algonquian dialects. I think Hochunk is mąčgú and may well be from Menomini. It is underlying Hochunk mątkú. I also talk about 'bow' in that Histories of Maize paper. I suspect that "nine" word is ultimately borrowed from Algonquian into Siouan (and not the other way around), but its etymology isn't totally clean in Algonquian, either. Rich and I took a stab at that one in our paper for the Frank Siebert festscrift. Yes, I read it. You and Rich may be right. Ives and I have gone back and forth over this. When I last talked with him about it he took the view that Algonquian borrowed it from Siouan and I took the opposite view. I guess neither family wants the poor orphan. > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). > Also, wasn't Ojibwe ogichidaa 'warrior' borrowed into Dakotan? In Kaw (Kansa) and other Dhegiha dialects it's akkida, so I'm guessing it's native to Siouan and borrowed by Ojibwe. Does it have an Algonquian etymology? If so, it's another shankka conundrum. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 01:51:56 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:51:56 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C20D@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: They were part of the same missionary enterprise. As I understand, Riggs and Williamson’s father were two of a group of missionaries that settled in Minnesota among the Dakota starting about 1834 and did language work with that tribe. Riggs published a dictionary and grammar of Dakota in 1852, and an expanded version of his Dakota-English dictionary was published in 1892. The younger Williamson took on the editing job of producing an English-Dakota dictionary to match, and published this in 1902. So yes, Williamson would have pretty much the same corpus as Riggs. But not necessarily always exactly the same. Note that Williamson lists a Y. form, mniokdasiŋ, which does not appear in that form in Riggs. Likewise, the mni-yó-hda-siŋ (Santee?) in Riggs does not appear in Williamson, so far as I can tell. Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:44 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Miyoglasin My understanding has always been that Williamson IS Riggs. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin > It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) > I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- to mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Mon Sep 9 02:26:41 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 20:26:41 -0600 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave, Bob, et al.-- The Lakota (Dakota?) greeting from man to man, "hau", is a loan from somewhere (the phonology is simply wrong for Dakotan). Has anyone figured that out? Also, I should point out that there is currently some substantial work with Hocank that perhaps some of the people on this list don't know about. In addition to Iren Hartmann and Johannes Helmbrecht, whom most of us know from the conferences, there is a long paper on Hocank morphology by Helmbrecht and Christian Lehmann in a book I helped edit a few years ago, "Lessons from documented endangered languages" (John Benjamin's). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 7 Sep 2013, David Costa wrote: > Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. > > Dave > >> It�s hard to say whether the �different� Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, > > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 9 14:23:14 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:23:14 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Five syll. actually. GL counts as two syllables. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:15:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAE8D@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:18:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:18:35 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Oh, and perhaps we should establish whether we're going to stick with syllables or morae. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:15 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:22:55 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:22:55 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370B9FD@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø > The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing "whatchacome" wa-. I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-'s. I've always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though. It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like 'us' and '(animate) them' would be a very natural development for a "whatchacome" wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object. Ø Ø I think the 'us' morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be. It often seems to be associated with another -a- that leaves it long. Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question. Yes. The 'us' seems to be handled a little bit differently than animate 'them'. In the causative in Omaha, 'us' is /-awa-/, while animate 'them' is simply /-wa-/. Otherwise, both are /wa-/, but when the affixed pronoun is initial, the /wa-/ seems to draw the accent if it means 'us', while letting it go to the next syllable if it means 'them'. That might indicate that there is an extra /-a-/ following the /wa-/ for 'us', which would make it long and draw the accent. This would suggest two original morphemes to make 'us': /a/ + /wa/ in the causative, and /wa/ + /a/ in other contexts. If that is our hypothesis, is there any reason to assume that the underlying /wa/ component of the 'us' construction is any different from the plain /wa/ of animate 'them' or from the general "whatchacome" /wa/ ? Ø > Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the 'I' form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard 'we' form. (I'm going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.) Ø Ø That would be surprising too. The form without -(a)wi should already be 'inclusive' as it is in the other languages. I don't know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb. I could be corrected on this though. I thought I remembered a discussion many years ago (maybe 6 or 8 or so?) on the list which probably involved John Koontz. What I had taken away from it was that there were certain dialects of Hocank in which, uniquely in Siouan, all four "person" categories could be pluralized. The 'I'-plural contrasted with the 'we', singular and plural, in that one meant inclusive we (including the person spoken to) and the other meant exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you). Looking at what I typed above, I suspect I got those reversed, assuming I'm remembering it right at all. In any case, if you don't recall this, and it doesn't seem right to you, let's just shelve the thought until we can either find the discussion or get expert input from somebody who really knows Hocank. Ø > Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi. The elements are the same; it's only the meanings that are different. Ø Ø I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from -api. I don't see a difference in meaning really. It means 'pluralizer' throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Maybe you're talking about the 3sg use of -abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called 'proximate vs. obviative'. I guess I'd consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer. But, again, I could be corrected on this. I think the question here is the semantic history of the *(a)pi particle in MVS. We are in agreement that the reflexes of this particle in two of the three branches of MVS, Dakotan and Hocank-IOM, primarily indicate plurality. In Dhegiha, it is more complicated. In Omaha, we have two particles to consider. The (a)bi particle primarily signals that the foregoing is hearsay or hypothesis, i.e., that it is to be taken with a grain of salt. It is used almost exclusively in the third person, singular and plural. The (a)i particle is, or was, used in some contexts to indicate plurality, especially the plural command and probably the indicative plural of 'you' and 'we'. It largely dropped out of the language in the 20th century, leaving only its a-grade ablaut behind, but in the 19th century it was used most commonly as the opposite to (a)bi, to signal that the foregoing is straight fact according to the testimony of the speaker. In this role, it also occurs in the third person, equally in singular and plural. Both (a)bi and (a)i also imply what John called "proximate", or what I might call "narrative action", in contrast to the case in which neither particle occurs, which I believe is what John called "obviative", or what I think we might consider declaration of a state of action or a general truth. This is the first I've known you to propose that 3sg use of (a)bi in Dhegiha is a distinct morpheme. Can you elaborate on that a bit? Are you claiming that the (a)bi particle is not derived from the same MVS *(a)pi particle that gives us the pluralizing (a)pi particle in Dakotan and pluralizing (a)wi in Hocank-IOM? In that case, would you claim that the (a)i particle IS derived from it, but not (a)bi? Or is it only in the 3sg case that you would consider it different? I.e., for [verb](a)bi, the (a)bi is a different morpheme depending on whether the subject is singular or plural? In this case, would you postulate separate (a)i morphemes as well, depending on whether the subject of [verb](a)i is singular or plural? Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 9 16:43:26 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:43:26 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ok, but in a purely synchronic phonological analysis of Lakota (disregarding history and morphology), you would have to say that these CCV syllables are one syllable, starting with a cluster. Right? That is the analysis of Boas and Deloria, Carter, Shaw. I know I am a little bit out of the loop in Siouan studies, but is there a more modern study of Lakota phonology showing that these are synchronically 2 syllables? I don't mean to go into a big argument regarding this, but I am just curious. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:15 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Sep 9 16:44:08 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:44:08 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C268@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 17:27:47 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:27:47 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That’s very helpful. Thanks, Iren! I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don’t fully understand the phonology. Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don’t really understand the derivation of. I’m very relieved to have confirmation on that pluralization paradigm, that I hadn’t totally lost my mind. What I told Sky earlier was backwards, though. It was the ‘I’-plural that was exclusive, and the ‘we’ or ‘dual’ form that is inclusive, as Bob indicated in his earlier message on Saturday. One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:44 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Mon Sep 9 18:08:38 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:08:38 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all: Some random stuff mostly about loans. Iren and Bob are quite right – there is still so much more to learn about loans even in areas (such as the Plains) where we think loans are infrequent. This is one reason why dictionaries are so important. I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me – items for ‘cucumber’ from French concombre, and also ttapuska ‘student, teacher’ which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. But mostly Plains languages seem to go in for what I call iron rations borrowing – loans are taken over sparingly and are put hard to work in compounds etc. There are some loans between Native lgs in the Southwest (Zuni is usually the recipient from Piman, Keresan etc) but that field needs to be explored too. Bob’s list of ‘suspect clusters’ is the kind of information we need so much when looking for possible loans. Mirror glass, btw, is the glass one uses to make mirrors with – in earlier days glass with a coating of mercury so that reflection would work. I don’t know about ‘hau’ but Comanche ‘aho’ (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Anthony. From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: 09 September 2013 17:44 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Sep 9 19:17:22 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:17:22 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09068625807a40a8a413ce50b7be1526@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Mon Sep 9 19:25:26 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:25:26 +0200 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD45@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear all: I think that there are more loan words in traditional Lakota than one may think. Here are some examples: aspéla (from aspirin) bébela ‘baby’ from French khukhúše ‘pig’ from French kuŋkúŋla - ‘cucumber’ khamíte ‘committee’ pusíla – ‘cat’ spakéli ‘spaghetti’ I recorded these word from fluent traditional speakers, although it is true that not all of them are recognized across the community. Such is the case of spakéli, aspéla and pusíla, but the other ones are fully standardized lexical items. And I am quite sure that this is not the full list. I am intrigued by Bob’s comment that othúŋwahe ‘town’ might be borrowing as well. I recall reading somewhere (perhaps in one of John Koontz’s materials, but I could be wrong) that the word itázipa ‘bow’ is a loan as well. Also, many speakers told me how their monolingual Lakota speaking grandparents Lakotized the children’s English names because they couldn’t pronounce them. For example Delores was called “Čelowiŋ”, Imogene was “Imočila” etc. I have documented dozens of these. I think that this could be another indication that Lakota speakers were quite open to borrowing words from other languages. Contemporary speakers are usually very reluctant to do so, but I think this might have been different when the majority of speakers were still monolingual. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were lots of loans from other tribes, especially on fauna and flora. As for “mirror” I have always been skeptical about the “mirror glass” etymology because the analyses that involves mní ‘water’ and a possessive or reflexive of ókas’iŋ ‘to peer into’ seem quite convincing and is consistent across dialects. But again, I can be wrong and it wouldn’t be for the first time. Jan From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:58 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Ø It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Ø I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 20:57:58 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:57:58 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ø Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hoocąk perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don’t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/jąą, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 22:51:00 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:51:00 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAED6@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: > Ok, but in a purely synchronic phonological analysis of Lakota (disregarding history and morphology), you would have to say that these CCV syllables are one syllable, starting with a cluster. Right? That is the analysis of Boas and Deloria, Carter, Shaw. If they actually make such assertions I think it's from a Eurocentric view of the syllable. It's what we were taught in grade school. I used to do an experiment in phonology class asking how many syllables were in the word TRAIN (as in choo choo). All Americans said "one". Spanish and Portuguese speakers said "two" and Korean and Japanese speakers all said "four". Everyone relied on training and on their native languages, etc. The question to ask is how those linguists handled accent on words beginning with GL or BL (incl. MN) clusters. Here's an interesting question though: What percentage of words beginning with BL, MN or GL carry accent on the second vowel to the right counting from the beginning of the word? In Kaw the answer shows pretty clearly that those CC clusters are counted as having an extra syllable. These are nearly all initial syllable accented words. How would Pat, Dick, Trudy or others handle that "linguistically significant generalization"? Should they just ignore it? > I know I am a little bit out of the loop in Siouan studies, but is there a more modern study of Lakota phonology showing that these are synchronically 2 syllables? I understand what you're saying, but there's no such thing in modern phonology as an analysis that completely disregards rules of accent placement/shift, morpheme/word boundaries, or even the actual identities of morphemes. In addition, although we can say that we are disregarding "history", various rules/constraints are always affected materially by the relative chronology of changes in the phonological system that took place centuries ago. We just invent purely synchronic ways of talking about such information. In standard generative phonology it was extrinsic rule ordering along with tags within rules like "minus rule 159" or "plus French loan", etc., later on it was lexical compartmentalization, rules were replaced with constraints and so forth. I lost track after the beginning of "optimology", but no matter what the model, the data will require consideration of all these characteristics of language. As linguists became disillusioned with endless phonological theorizing, phoneticians reasserted themselves and we were treated to the "IPA fetish" and 20 minute Power Point spectrogram presentations desperately condensed into 3 minutes because of laptop glitches at LSA/SSILA. They liked to ignore the complexities of phonology to concentrate on machines and minutiae. > I don't mean to go into a big argument regarding this, but I am just curious. Oh, don't worry, I don't take these discussions personally. I just think it's important to air all the issues for the sake of all the eager young students who read our stuff. :-). Best, Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:01:37 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob ________________________________ As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:12:38 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:12:38 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09068625807a40a8a413ce50b7be1526@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don’t fully understand the phonology. Yes, it's irregular. > Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. First person *wa is missing in action. Second person *yi turns up regularly in Lakota as chi because PSI *y becomes aspirated ch in Lakota. This irregular portmanteau is a good part of the evidence for considering the second person historically *y, not r- Irregular morphology retains the more conservative pronominal. > In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don’t really understand the derivation of. First person *wa plus second person *yi contracts to wi. And, again, the irregular morphology retains the conservative form -- this time of the 1st person. The W was lost everywhere else in Dhegiha. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:46:40 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:46:40 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C938@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Bob! That helps. I'm still a bit puzzled by Lakhota chi though. If first person *wa is actually missing from the portmanteau, why isn't the outcome the same as we get for second person *yi alone? And why doesn't second person undergoer *yi itself go to aspirated /chi/ rather than (I think) ni ? For Dhegiha wi, we apparently get a second *wa after the wi and before the verb when the inflected root starts with a simple stop or *r (non-standard or consonant-type inflection). That fact had thrown me, since it led me to suppose that the *wa came after the *yi rather than before it. But I suppose this is just a secondary reanalysis in Dhegiha making for double inflection? Is it only Dhegiha that does this after the portmanteau? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 6:13 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. > I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don't fully understand the phonology. Yes, it's irregular. > Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. First person *wa is missing in action. Second person *yi turns up regularly in Lakota as chi because PSI *y becomes aspirated ch in Lakota. This irregular portmanteau is a good part of the evidence for considering the second person historically *y, not r- Irregular morphology retains the more conservative pronominal. > In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don't really understand the derivation of. First person *wa plus second person *yi contracts to wi. And, again, the irregular morphology retains the conservative form -- this time of the 1st person. The W was lost everywhere else in Dhegiha. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 00:48:40 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:48:40 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me – items for ‘cucumber’ from French concombre, and also ttapuska ‘student, teacher’ which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don’t know about ‘hau’ but Comanche ‘aho’ (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Maybe. The word is čákkáàli and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as čkane I think. Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ḳasą́hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. Ofo kíštatǝška Sw kĭ´ctatạcga — nine; p. 325. Some words where š is expected turn up with št instead. So this may contain some variant of shankka somehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:01:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:01:20 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <003e01cead92$56a6de50$03f49af0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Thanks for the expert commentary and additional examples. Othúŋwahe ‘town’ is another one of those wanderwoerter that has similar forms in Dakotan, Dhegiha, and Biloxi as well as Choctaw and Chickasaw. I'm surprised it doesn't seem to be in Chiwere or Hochunk. I think it turns up in Virginia in the tribal name Tomahitan, which would mean 'big town' also in Biloxi. It's not out of the question that the word is native Siouan, but the distribution and sound correspondences don't make me feel good. :-) Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Dear all: I think that there are more loan words in traditional Lakota than one may think. Here are some examples: aspéla (from aspirin) bébela ‘baby’ from French khukhúše ‘pig’ from French kuŋkúŋla - ‘cucumber’ khamíte ‘committee’ pusíla – ‘cat’ spakéli ‘spaghetti’ I recorded these word from fluent traditional speakers, although it is true that not all of them are recognized across the community. Such is the case of spakéli, aspéla and pusíla, but the other ones are fully standardized lexical items. And I am quite sure that this is not the full list. I am intrigued by Bob’s comment that othúŋwahe ‘town’ might be borrowing as well. I recall reading somewhere (perhaps in one of John Koontz’s materials, but I could be wrong) that the word itázipa ‘bow’ is a loan as well. Also, many speakers told me how their monolingual Lakota speaking grandparents Lakotized the children’s English names because they couldn’t pronounce them. For example Delores was called “Čelowiŋ”, Imogene was “Imočila” etc. I have documented dozens of these. I think that this could be another indication that Lakota speakers were quite open to borrowing words from other languages. Contemporary speakers are usually very reluctant to do so, but I think this might have been different when the majority of speakers were still monolingual. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were lots of loans from other tribes, especially on fauna and flora. As for “mirror” I have always been skeptical about the “mirror glass” etymology because the analyses that involves mní ‘water’ and a possessive or reflexive of ókas’iŋ ‘to peer into’ seem quite convincing and is consistent across dialects. But again, I can be wrong and it wouldn’t be for the first time. Jan From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:58 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin > It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) > I have to admit that I’m very skeptical of 5 syllable long “coincidences”, so it seems to me more likely that ‘mirror’ is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-yó-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasiŋ. mí-o-gla-siŋ, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasiŋ. mni-yó-hda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasiŋ. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasiŋ. Y. Mniokdasiŋ. T. Miyoglasiŋ. Riggs: i-hdí-yo-mda-siŋ, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasiŋ. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. a-ó-ka-siŋ, v.a. to look into, peep into—aowakasiŋ, aoyakasiŋ, aouŋkasiŋpi. ó-ka-siŋ, v. to look into. See aokasiŋ, kas’iŋ, and okakiŋ. ka-s’íŋ, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasiŋ and okasiŋ. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself’, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ‘mirror’. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ‘water’, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ‘oil’, ihdi, could be substituted for ‘water’ to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix—not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to “mirrorglass”, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both “miroir” and “glace” as words for ‘mirror’, where English has “mirror” and “looking-glass”. But was a term like “mirrorglass” actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don’t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the “coincidence” here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From munro at UCLA.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:05:53 2013 From: munro at UCLA.EDU (Pamela Munro) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:05:53 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CA0E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I have an alternative view on Western Muskogean 'nine'. Chickasaw chákka'li / chakká'li 'to be nine' (cognate to the Choctaw forms Bob cites) seems quite clearly to be a g[eminate]-grade form (i.e. ablauted aspectual form) of a verb chakali 'to be pregnant, great with child', which my Chickasaw teacher knows but regards as Choctaw. You might not immediately see a connection between 'nine', and 'pregnant', but a variety of languages express 'nine' as something like 'just about ready to reach (something, i.e. ten)', so I believe that these two verbs are in fact related. This suggests that the WM forms have their own etymology and thus aren't likely to be loans. Bob is correct that -li can be a verb ending in these languages (e.g. in chokma 'to be good' / chokmali 'to make good'). I don't know any evidence that the -li in 'to be nine' is segmentable, however, unless one believes that all verb-final li's are segmentable. Pam On 9/9/13 5:48 PM, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me – items for ‘cucumber’ from French concombre, and > also ttapuska ‘student, teacher’ which is shared by Dhegiha and > Pawnee. I don’t know about ‘hau’ but Comanche ‘aho’ (hello) is > supposed to come from Kiowa. > > Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't > think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with /kko > /the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a > coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > > > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) > > > Maybe. The word is/čákkáàli/ and -/ali/ is an ending all right. It > is borrowed into Biloxi as /čkane /I think. > > > Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has /ḳasą́hka/, so it is > definitely in the /shankka/ zone. > > > Ofo /*kíštatǝška*//Sw //kĭ´ctatạcga/ — nine;//p. 325. Some words > where /š/is expected turn up with /št/instead. So this may contain > some variant of /shankka/ somehow. The prefix with /k/ mirrors Tutelo > to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. > > > So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and > maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and > Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but > there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. > > > Bob > > -- Pamela Munro, Distinguished Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:10:15 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:10:15 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. No need. You're absolutely right. The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:15:46 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 19:15:46 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. > ________________________________ > >> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. > > Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ > > It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. > > Bob > From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:26:48 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:26:48 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I’m still a bit puzzled by Lakhota chi though. If first person *wa is actually missing from the portmanteau, why isn’t the outcome the same as we get for second person *yi alone? And why doesn’t second person undergoer *yi itself go to aspirated /chi/ rather than (I think) ni ? *y- of the 2nd person was replaced with r in MVS. There are just relics of the 2nd sg. in y-. For Dhegiha wi, we apparently get a second *wa after the wi and before the verb when the inflected root starts with a simple stop or *r (non-standard or consonant-type inflection). That fact had thrown me, since it led me to suppose that the *wa came after the *yi rather than before it. But I suppose this is just a secondary reanalysis in Dhegiha making for double inflection? If you like conundra the order of agent and patient in the portmanteaux should keep you busy. It's true in Kaw also that the I/you prefix, wi- often gets a second 1st sg. prefix on the following verb. That's just what Dick Carter called "layering". When one layer becomes unanalyzable to speakers, they just add another. > Is it only Dhegiha that does this after the portmanteau? I don't know. Dakotanists?? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:36:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:36:20 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <522E7071.9000602@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the nice contribution, Pam. I certainly wouldn't argue with your interpretation. We may be dealing with another coincidence. I can't otherwise explain why, if Choctaw and Chickasaw borrowed the word, they didn't simply replace sh with sh. They have their own sh after all. Bob > Chickasaw chákka'li / chakká'li 'to be nine' (cognate to the Choctaw forms Bob cites) seems quite clearly to be a g[eminate]-grade form (i.e. ablauted aspectual form) of a verb chakali 'to be pregnant, great with child', which my Chickasaw teacher knows but regards as Choctaw. > You might not immediately see a connection between 'nine', and 'pregnant', but a variety of languages express 'nine' as something like 'just about ready to reach (something, i.e. ten)', so I believe that these two verbs are in fact related. This suggests that the WM forms have their own etymology and thus aren't likely to be loans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Tue Sep 10 01:44:08 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:44:08 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CA0E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Dave > > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me – items for ‘cucumber’ from French concombre, and also ttapuska ‘student, teacher’ which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don’t know about ‘hau’ but Comanche ‘aho’ (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. > > Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > > > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) > > Maybe. The word is čákkáàli and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as čkane I think. > > Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ḳasą́hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. > > Ofo kíštatǝška Sw kĭ´ctatạcga — nine; p. 325. Some words where š is expected turn up with št instead. So this may contain some variant of shankkasomehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. > > So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. > > Bob > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:51:52 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:51:52 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. > ________________________________ > >> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. > > Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ > > It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. > > Bob > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:58:32 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:58:32 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <73567A65-1147-4708-B448-83223AE1B7E1@earthlink.net> Message-ID: > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 10 02:15:36 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:15:36 -0500 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC78@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša.nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča.nka, not *ša.nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Tue Sep 10 02:23:44 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:23:44 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC09@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the interesting comments, Bob. And thanks for your input, David. Yes, this is indeed what I also find. If Bob was correct about Lakota stress rules, then the numerous verbs with blu-, glu-, bla- gla-, would have stress on the first syllable, but they don't. I think I am not Eurocentric about my phonology, though. (After all, the first class in good ole American phonology I ever took, as a young wide-eyed European whippersnapper, was with you, Bob.) The Eurocentrics are the ones who gave us Minnesota for mnisota, etc. I admit to being a Lakotacentric sort of Siouanist. But I think you, Bob, are of the Dhegihacentric sort! ;-) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 09:22:40 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:22:40 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C905@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Tue Sep 10 10:07:22 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:07:22 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <73567A65-1147-4708-B448-83223AE1B7E1@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave et al: It could have been borrowed on more than one occasion (we can never know whether M-I had it and lost it). Pam, I like the ‘expectant’ potential etymon of the Choctaw/Chickasaw form and it makes a lot of sense; after all IE ‘nine’ may be connected with ‘new’. Bob, is the ‘big’ form in Dhegiha that you mention as coming from Spanish the everyday one? I ask because Joseph Casagrande pointed out that Comanche borrowed a Spanish word for ‘good’ (and Comanche may have got a ‘bear’ word from Dhegiha). Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: 10 September 2013 02:44 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Dave > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me – items for ‘cucumber’ from French concombre, and also ttapuska ‘student, teacher’ which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don’t know about ‘hau’ but Comanche ‘aho’ (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Maybe. The word is čákkáàli and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as čkane I think. Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ḳasą́hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. Ofo kíštatǝška Sw kĭ´ctatạcga — nine; p. 325. Some words where š is expected turn up with št instead. So this may contain some variant of shankkasomehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. Bob ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 11:44:48 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:44:48 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CABA@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob, Hoocąk grizzly bear is mąąco (definitely with a voiceless affricate) As for cow elk, I’m not aware of there being a specific word for a female elk, generally elk is hųųwą - Iren The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 11:56:59 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:56:59 -0500 Subject: clusters in potential loan words In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD20@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Bob, you wrote: In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey’s Law vowel. Would this be cVw in Hoocąk? As in wicąwąs ’big cat, squash’? Or reecawa ’belly button’? ...nąącawa ’ear’? Thanks, Iren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 12:27:58 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:27:58 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Irene: How is it that 2nd SG & Pl and 3rd SG & Pl are the same? Did you mean to write it that way, or is it a typo? From: Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:22 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 12:40:10 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:40:10 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No, this is correct for the emphatic free standing personal pronouns, there is only a distinction between 1st & 2nd person vs. 3rd person, there is no distinction made in number. These are highly underspecified. Number distinctions are only made on the verb in Hoocąk never on nouns or pronouns. - Iren Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:27:58 -0500 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Irene: How is it that 2nd SG & Pl and 3rd SG & Pl are the same? Did you mean to write it that way, or is it a typo? From: Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:22 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Tue Sep 10 14:10:58 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:10:58 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB226@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Bob, From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. I’m not sure I totally understand what we’re looking for here, though. Did you mean to say: Ø You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. Or did you mean: Ø You just don't find a lot of *blvC(C)V'. I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Also, aren’t ALL Ls in Kaw and Osage reflexes of GL? If not, where else do they come from? Anyway, here’s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I’ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ‘across’ and ‘hawk’ have it on the “third” syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I’d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. gradìⁿ - across; (e.g. cows cutting across a pasture, or a bolt going across between two doors, or a pin going through a hitch) gràhe-roⁿ-roⁿ - frequently; all the time grèbe - vomit grêboⁿ - ten grèboⁿ-hiⁿwiⁿ - hundred gredòⁿ - hawk; American sparrow hawk grēze - striped grēže - speckled; spotted grìⁿ - sit (agrìⁿ, ragrìⁿ) gròⁿ - name-calling; (call someone a bad name) grōⁿge - dive (e.g. into water) grōⁿ-groⁿ - cuss; curse; call someone names grōⁿriⁿ - crazy grōⁿška - red shouldered hawk grōⁿška-qīrà-egoⁿ - white tailed hawk grōⁿxe - musty (e.g. when you walk into a closet or a basement of an old house) grūba - all of it; all of a set; (e.g. all the furniture in this room. This refers to constrained inanimate sets only) Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:24 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics Thanks for the interesting comments, Bob. And thanks for your input, David. Yes, this is indeed what I also find. If Bob was correct about Lakota stress rules, then the numerous verbs with blu-, glu-, bla- gla-, would have stress on the first syllable, but they don't. I think I am not Eurocentric about my phonology, though. (After all, the first class in good ole American phonology I ever took, as a young wide-eyed European whippersnapper, was with you, Bob.) The Eurocentrics are the ones who gave us Minnesota for mnisota, etc. I admit to being a Lakotacentric sort of Siouanist. But I think you, Bob, are of the Dhegihacentric sort! ;-) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mckay020 at UMN.EDU Tue Sep 10 14:27:08 2013 From: mckay020 at UMN.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?Q8yjYcaedGUgTWHMgXph?=) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:27:08 -0500 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: <004e01ceacc0$4c4d8490$e4e88db0$@net> Message-ID: Go datkan? I meant Hi Darla. Silly auto correct, I must have sent that from my phone, I text in Dakota everyday so it changed your name to "you're drinking it" -neil On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Darla Spencer wrote: > Neil,**** > > Thanks very much!**** > > Darla**** > > ** ** > > Darla Spencer, RPA**** > > 1526 Autumn Road**** > > Charleston, WV 25314**** > > (304) 561-4753**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] *On Behalf Of > *C?a?te Ma´za > *Sent:* Sunday, September 08, 2013 2:16 PM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Re: Class in NA linguistics**** > > ** ** > > Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but > you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. > > -neil > > On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native > American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an > online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the > area. > > Thanks, > > Darla Spencer > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > **** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Tue Sep 10 15:24:15 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:24:15 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was the one who was questioning the –wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning –wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of –wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ☺. Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. te/che – buffalo inde/inje – face ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) tade/taje – wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: mase/maðe – metal ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) si/thi – foot si/ði – yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of “s” where nowadays we have ð or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton’s entry of “wą” (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear “bą” around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Ø Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hoocąk perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don’t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/jąą, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Tue Sep 10 18:27:02 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:27:02 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369D8BB27C85@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: Hi Sky, Ø Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: Ø Ø “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. Ø Ø te/che – buffalo Ø inde/inje – face Ø ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) Ø tade/taje – wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn’t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. Ø Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: Ø Ø mase/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø si/ði – yellow Ø Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ç. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: Ø mąze/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø zi/ði – yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [ð] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. Ø All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: Ø Ø sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) Ø nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) Ø nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) Ø In general, I think you’re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ‘black’ is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman’s name Mi-sebe, meaning “The Dark of the Moon”. I’m sure your linguist friend is correct about “thi-pi” meaning ‘they live’, or rather ‘they dwell’. I’ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ‘house’ or as the verb ‘dwell’. Ø Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? Ø Ø What do you guys think? Ø Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hoocąk, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ‘you’ and ‘we’, and in Hoocąk, ‘I’, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ‘we’ and ‘you’. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ‘you’, ‘we’, and perhaps ‘I’. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it’s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the –wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning –wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of –wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ☺. Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. te/che – buffalo inde/inje – face ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) tade/taje – wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: mase/maðe – metal ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) si/thi – foot si/ði – yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of “s” where nowadays we have ð or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton’s entry of “wą” (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear “bą” around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Ø Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hoocąk perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don’t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/jąą, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ­­ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Tue Sep 10 19:52:36 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:52:36 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC09@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of > words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent > the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You > just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes > of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms > with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I > think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in > both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual > pattern; I'm working from memory here. > > And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. > > Bob > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Lakota phonetics > > Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is > right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole > syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. > bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do > accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second > syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's > on the third? > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > >> I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. >> ________________________________ >> >>> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. >> >> Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ >> >> It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. >> >> Bob >> > > From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Tue Sep 10 21:05:45 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:05:45 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the info! I am slowly starting to understand many of the linguistic hows and whys of these things and explanations like yours really help ☺. I’ve heard “metal” as both “mase” with an “s” (heard that one the other day) as well as “mazhe” (you see that “zh” spelling often around here nowadays when it is more of the French “j” sound rather than “z” as in zebra). I made a mistake with the Ponca “yellow.” I should have put down “zi” rather than “si.” I should know better…I know a little boy named Te Nuga Zi ☺. To my immediate knowledge, I’ve only seen “chi” to indicate “live” in names such as “Nut’achi” (Missouria – roughly “those who live at the mouth of a river”) and Ahachikithage (Killer of People who Live on a Ridge). That last name threw me for a loop for quite a while when I first saw it in a treaty that translated “one who strikes the Little Osages” (1830 treaty) and then as “Missouri Chief” (1854 treaty). Those spellings of his name have the “s” rather than the “th” like we are talking about. For a long time I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out how the word “Osage” was in that name. The “kithage” was easy enough to extract but I couldn’t make sense of the rest of it. Then I found this name in Whitman’s The Oto (page 92) and then all became clear (ahe – hill; (might be the locative “a-“ here attached to the following “chi” to make the change from the “e” in “ahe” to an “a” sound (IE “achi” (live on)) chi – live; kithage – fight/strike/kill). So now it is my guess that those people on the ridge he killed were Osages ☺. Merrill recorded his name but didn’t translate it (he had it as “Hlcekeglka”). Thankfully Dorsey did, though. But beyond those two names, I can’t think of any other instances off the top of my head where “chi” is used specifically as “live.” I’m going to keep digging for the –wi (we-dual) form and see what I come up with. That use of “-pi” really does suggest to me that it may just be out there in some way but as you said, it just may not have been picked up. Time will tell though! ☺ Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:27 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Sky, Ø Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: Ø Ø “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. Ø Ø te/che – buffalo Ø inde/inje – face Ø ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) Ø tade/taje – wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn’t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. Ø Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: Ø Ø mase/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø si/ði – yellow Ø Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ç. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: Ø mąze/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø zi/ði – yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [ð] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. Ø All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: Ø Ø sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) Ø nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) Ø nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) Ø In general, I think you’re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ‘black’ is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman’s name Mi-sebe, meaning “The Dark of the Moon”. I’m sure your linguist friend is correct about “thi-pi” meaning ‘they live’, or rather ‘they dwell’. I’ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ‘house’ or as the verb ‘dwell’. Ø Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? Ø Ø What do you guys think? Ø Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hoocąk, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ‘you’ and ‘we’, and in Hoocąk, ‘I’, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ‘we’ and ‘you’. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ‘you’, ‘we’, and perhaps ‘I’. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it’s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the –wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning –wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of –wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ☺. Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. te/che – buffalo inde/inje – face ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) tade/taje – wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: mase/maðe – metal ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) si/thi – foot si/ði – yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of “s” where nowadays we have ð or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton’s entry of “wą” (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear “bą” around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Ø Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hoocąk perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don’t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/jąą, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ­­ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Tue Sep 10 21:54:34 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:54:34 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, That’s what happened in Jiwere : miNre , miN?e 1st person independent Pronoun, rire, ri?e 2nd person, are ‘3rd person’… I would hear interesting English syntax sometimes using pronouns also, in an appositive manner: ‘Me, I don’t know about X’, or conversely ‘I don’t know, me.’ I’m sorry – I would add more on the –wi issue, but it’s time to head home, and my brain has accordingly shut off for the day. Best, Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren ________________________________ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob ________________________________ As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). 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 rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 23:33:16 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:16 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. Message-ID: > From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. Actually, it's not a problem in Osage and Kaw. Initial /l/ simply subs for original /gl/. The real problem with initial /gl/ is that it is mostly inflectional, primarily possessive, and, as such, does not undergo the phonological restructuring that /bl/ does. In other words, /gl/ is supported by active morphophonemic alternations in all the languages. That doesn't happen with /bl/ or its nasal counterparts except in inflected 1st person sg. verb forms. I'm interested primarily in the cases of real restructuring where there is no support from phonological alternation. I’m not sure I totally understand what we’re looking for here, though. I’m saying that, because initial BL (along with nasalized bn-, mn-) is all that is left of an initial disyllable, *wvlv́ (where v is any vowel), we can’t expect to find many modern lexemes with the accentual pattern blvCv́. This is because, in the older disyllable, accent would have become stranded on the initial syllable vowel after the first vowel in the word underwent syncope, i.e., dropped out. To find the pattern blvCv́ would imply a proto-Siouan accent pattern cvcvcv́ unless we posit massive accent shift. > I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Primordial DIsyllables. And, yes, you're exactly right about the "underlying second syllable rather than the third." > Anyway, here’s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I’ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ‘across’ and ‘hawk’ have it on the “third” syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I’d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Kansa Of approx. 22 lexemes in initial bl- all accent the initial syllable except for reduplicanda, which always accent the 2nd duplicated syllable. Osage Of 10 lexemes with initial br- all 10 accent the initial syllable. (Quintero). Quapaw approx. 18 lexemes in bd-/bn-. Only one lexeme, bdasé ‘shout, cry out’, plus a few reduplicanda, accent the 2nd syllable. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ‘water’. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem’s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 00:28:37 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:28:37 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D22B@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Here you go. I count about 10 or 11 distinct words that are at least three primordial syllables long. All of them take their accent on the first second syllable, which confirms your pattern. Now I’m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would—correct me if I’m mistaken), wouldn’t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? Best, Rory bràra - spread-out brāska - flat brēe-tʰe - ante (the money you put up) brēe-tʰe-uágihi - I broke even (e.g. in a card game); I won back what I ante'd brēexe - pelican (American white pelican) brēkka - thin brēkka-žiⁿga - silver half dime brìppe - powder (e.g. powdered milk or flour) brìška - plump; (fat and round, like a tomato that is wider than it is tall. You see some people who have this shape too.) brīⁿra - flaps that open and close brōⁿ - smell; odor; (can be either stinky or nice) brōⁿxe - not big; real branchy; full; leafy brōⁿze - petite; slender; small brūga - all of them; all of it; everything; everyone; (e.g. everything in this room. This can be for animate beings or inanimate objects, and is not strictly pinned down to an exclusive set); (spread out round and flat) From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. Actually, it's not a problem in Osage and Kaw. Initial /l/ simply subs for original /gl/. The real problem with initial /gl/ is that it is mostly inflectional, primarily possessive, and, as such, does not undergo the phonological restructuring that /bl/ does. In other words, /gl/ is supported by active morphophonemic alternations in all the languages. That doesn't happen with /bl/ or its nasal counterparts except in inflected 1st person sg. verb forms. I'm interested primarily in the cases of real restructuring where there is no support from phonological alternation. I’m not sure I totally understand what we’re looking for here, though. I’m saying that, because initial BL (along with nasalized bn-, mn-) is all that is left of an initial disyllable, *wvlv́ (where v is any vowel), we can’t expect to find many modern lexemes with the accentual pattern blvCv́. This is because, in the older disyllable, accent would have become stranded on the initial syllable vowel after the first vowel in the word underwent syncope, i.e., dropped out. To find the pattern blvCv́ would imply a proto-Siouan accent pattern cvcvcv́ unless we posit massive accent shift. > I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Primordial DIsyllables. And, yes, you're exactly right about the "underlying second syllable rather than the third." > Anyway, here’s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I’ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ‘across’ and ‘hawk’ have it on the “third” syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I’d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Kansa Of approx. 22 lexemes in initial bl- all accent the initial syllable except for reduplicanda, which always accent the 2nd duplicated syllable. Osage Of 10 lexemes with initial br- all 10 accent the initial syllable. (Quintero). Quapaw approx. 18 lexemes in bd-/bn-. Only one lexeme, bdasé ‘shout, cry out’, plus a few reduplicanda, accent the 2nd syllable. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ‘water’. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem’s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Wed Sep 11 02:43:00 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 02:43:00 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D22B@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ‘water’. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem’s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Wed Sep 11 08:42:20 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 03:42:20 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Jill, that's good to know! Best, Iren Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:54:34 +0000 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, That’s what happened in Jiwere : miNre , miN?e 1st person independent Pronoun, rire, ri?e 2nd person, are ‘3rd person’… I would hear interesting English syntax sometimes using pronouns also, in an appositive manner: ‘Me, I don’t know about X’, or conversely ‘I don’t know, me.’ I’m sorry – I would add more on the –wi issue, but it’s time to head home, and my brain has accordingly shut off for the day. Best, Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the nį I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a nįe that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). 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 rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 11 15:40:50 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:40:50 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <82b28e0a76b843e2bda710ff078d3ec6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > Now I’m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would—correct me if I’m mistaken), wouldn’t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? I'm not saying anything about "perception" at all. This is about "competence", not "performance", to quote Chomsky. CL-initial words get accent on the first syllable because there used to be a vowel where just the B or G is now. Accent is still assigned on that basis. (And I'm leaving aside the whole problem of vowel length here.) If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. Exactly. But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? Because it behaves like a second syllable with regard to accent. Don't get confused about the differences between phonetics and phonology. Morphophonology can still be affected by things that happened a couple of thousand years ago. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 20:58:12 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:58:12 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D590@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø > Now I'm wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would-correct me if I'm mistaken), wouldn't that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. Ø Let me try re-asking that question more concretely. Without loss of generality, let's take the *BL cluster. First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we're on the same page, and you've shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don't see how the "BL syllable" can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv 3. This can't happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven't been able to think of, can you describe what that is? Thanks, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 11 23:02:33 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:02:33 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <9f9c6c911f074ce8a2b3f7d8bbbd7831@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Yes. That's standard Siouan historical phonology that everybody agrees on. > Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we’re on the same page, and you’ve shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. That's unless the initial syllable V is long, in which case it gets the accent. But that's not applicable in these instances because if the initial syllable had been long it wouldn't have undergone syncope. > Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv No, the *wa- or animate *wi- prefixes only really occurred word-initially as far as I know,(or as far as any of us has analyzed, I think). So your scenario maybe didn't really occur. > If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don’t see how the “BL syllable” can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: > 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv Can only happen under the Winnebago accent shift. Other Siouan languages don't seem to allow it with the possible exception of Dorsey's really screwed up accentual patterns in Biloxi. In any event, there are no know cases. > 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv If the 1st syllable was long it always had the accent (without having to posit a shift). > 3. This can’t happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Yes, I think that's it. You're right out on the cutting edge of reconstructing proto-Siouan phonology here, and I don't think we have any cases of your vulnerable syllable structure to try to explain. As far as anyone has gotten there weren't instances of derivational *wa/wi that had prefixes. Locative prefixes, *ii-/aa-/o- were originally postpositions on preceding NPs that were later reanalyzed as verb prefixes (as I recall Randy has instances of them still functioning that way in Crow.) 1st singular *wa + /r/ clusters are different in that they are supported by active morphophonemic alternations all along, but they behave the same way until the patient and locative enclitics became prefixes creating sequences such as you describe above. By that time the BL 1st sing. clusters were established and didn't revert to /wa-r/ sequences. The GL clusters have a more complex history since they interact with all the damned KI morphemes and generally (always??) arise through inflection rather than derivation. I don't have time to even think about than can of worms. > Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven’t been able to think of, can you describe what that is? If you can't think of it, I'm sure I haven't. I think the only thing you have left out of the discussion of this is the complexity of inflection vs. derivation, and that's better left for the next generation of historical Siouanists, if there is one. Suffice it to say that there ARE additional problems with initial syllable unaccented short vowel syncope. It only seems to have happened with *wV- syllables. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 23:35:26 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:35:26 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D9D8@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Bob! That answers my question very well. In fact, I'm going to want to keep it around for reference while I try to absorb all that. :) Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:03 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Yes. That's standard Siouan historical phonology that everybody agrees on. > Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we're on the same page, and you've shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. That's unless the initial syllable V is long, in which case it gets the accent. But that's not applicable in these instances because if the initial syllable had been long it wouldn't have undergone syncope. > Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv No, the *wa- or animate *wi- prefixes only really occurred word-initially as far as I know,(or as far as any of us has analyzed, I think). So your scenario maybe didn't really occur. > If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don't see how the "BL syllable" can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: > 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv Can only happen under the Winnebago accent shift. Other Siouan languages don't seem to allow it with the possible exception of Dorsey's really screwed up accentual patterns in Biloxi. In any event, there are no know cases. > 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv If the 1st syllable was long it always had the accent (without having to posit a shift). > 3. This can't happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Yes, I think that's it. You're right out on the cutting edge of reconstructing proto-Siouan phonology here, and I don't think we have any cases of your vulnerable syllable structure to try to explain. As far as anyone has gotten there weren't instances of derivational *wa/wi that had prefixes. Locative prefixes, *ii-/aa-/o- were originally postpositions on preceding NPs that were later reanalyzed as verb prefixes (as I recall Randy has instances of them still functioning that way in Crow.) 1st singular *wa + /r/ clusters are different in that they are supported by active morphophonemic alternations all along, but they behave the same way until the patient and locative enclitics became prefixes creating sequences such as you describe above. By that time the BL 1st sing. clusters were established and didn't revert to /wa-r/ sequences. The GL clusters have a more complex history since they interact with all the damned KI morphemes and generally (always??) arise through inflection rather than derivation. I don't have time to even think about than can of worms. > Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven't been able to think of, can you describe what that is? If you can't think of it, I'm sure I haven't. I think the only thing you have left out of the discussion of this is the complexity of inflection vs. derivation, and that's better left for the next generation of historical Siouanists, if there is one. Suffice it to say that there ARE additional problems with initial syllable unaccented short vowel syncope. It only seems to have happened with *wV- syllables. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Thu Sep 12 02:26:04 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:26:04 -0600 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D590@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Now you've got me confused, Bob. This started with miyoglas'in being either four or five syllables, you opting for 5, Willem, me and Pam opting for four. Now you seem to be saying the gl and bl are syllables phonologically but not phonetically, because there is no phonological schwah between b or g and l, but because there used to be a vowel there, we still have to count as if the schwah were a real vowel? I understand the argument that word-initial bl and gl with accent on the vowel after them derive from words that used to have two syllables, stressed on the second. That is certainly one source for words with first-syllable stress. But as soon as the unaccented vowel disappears, doesn't it stay disappeared both phonetically and phonologically? Aren't you confusing diachrony with synchronic phonology? I don't see how you can claim that miyoglas'in has five syllables synchronically. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: >> Now I�m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would�correct me if I�m mistaken), wouldn�t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? > > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > > Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? > > I'm not saying anything about "perception" at all. This is about "competence", not "performance", to quote Chomsky. CL-initial words get accent on the first syllable because there used to be a vowel where just the B or G is now. Accent is still assigned on that basis. (And I'm leaving aside the whole problem of vowel length here.) > > If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. > > Exactly. > > But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? > > Because it behaves like a second syllable with regard to accent. Don't get confused about the differences between phonetics and phonology. Morphophonology can still be affected by things that happened a couple of thousand years ago. > > Bob > > From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Thu Sep 12 14:36:37 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:36:37 -0500 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <001e01ceadcb$a34b7200$e9e25600$@com> Message-ID: I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča*nka, not *ša*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Thu Sep 12 16:27:17 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:27:17 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369D8BB28213@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča*nka, not *ša*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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 rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 17:34:42 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:34:42 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning 'nine', which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča*nka, not *ša*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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 pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Sep 12 18:00:23 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (david costa) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Thu Sep 12 18:08:20 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:08:20 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Indeed I seem to recall that some (Albert Gatschet?) said that they knew of no Native North American language where ‘nine’ was a single morpheme. (I think someone adduced this principle as evidence that the Taensa material was a fake.) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:00 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn’t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me “nanye” (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to “nanyi” (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of “sanke” they had “nanye.” They didn’t miss a beat either. I haven’t come across this term before. I don’t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English “nine.” I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn’t a “let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words” sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I’m going to have to see about working with this individual more ☺. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual “sanke.” I can’t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I’ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it’ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Sep 12 18:28:15 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (david costa) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:28:15 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Thu Sep 12 18:34:46 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:34:46 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <2974692.1379010495410.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Well, that’s Albert Gatschet for you – generalising on too few data. Am I right in thinking that some Illinois sources have a bimorphemic form for 8 in addition to the Ohio Valley Siouan one? As to numerals, John Koontz said that Caddo for ‘one’ was plausibly from a Dhegiha form. From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:28 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Well, "nine" is monomorphemic in several Algonquian languages -- in some Ojibwe dialects, it's zhaang, in most Potawatomi dialects it's zhak, and in Kickapoo it's saaka. It may not be certain where that word comes from, but it's definitely monomorphemic. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Grant Sent: Sep 12, 2013 11:08 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Indeed I seem to recall that some (Albert Gatschet?) said that they knew of no Native North American language where ‘nine’ was a single morpheme. (I think someone adduced this principle as evidence that the Taensa material was a fake.) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:00 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn’t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me “nanye” (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to “nanyi” (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of “sanke” they had “nanye.” They didn’t miss a beat either. I haven’t come across this term before. I don’t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English “nine.” I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn’t a “let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words” sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I’m going to have to see about working with this individual more ☺. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual “sanke.” I can’t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I’ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it’ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 18:58:33 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:58:33 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave, I agree. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek from the point of view of the hapless speaker trying to rattle off a big number with lots of nines in it, and I was picturing a generation of bright young Otoes who decided to abbreviate. From the perspective of North American languages generally, I imagine the Dakotan terms are par for the course. But what a nice thread that sparked! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:00 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn’t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me “nanye” (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to “nanyi” (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of “sanke” they had “nanye.” They didn’t miss a beat either. I haven’t come across this term before. I don’t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English “nine.” I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn’t a “let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words” sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I’m going to have to see about working with this individual more ☺. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual “sanke.” I can’t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I’ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it’ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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 rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 18:59:45 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:59:45 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Message-ID: > Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) > The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. Interesting contribution. I hope someone figures it out. By the way, could I make a plea for us to try to make the subject line of our postings accurate and up-to-date? I'm more guilty than most of leaving the subject lines intact when the topic shifts, but if our search mechanism looks primarily at subject lines when looking for pertinent information, we're not doing future linguists any favor retaining old information in the headings. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Thu Sep 12 19:10:50 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:10:50 +0200 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370DEF9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively Bob, I wonder if the etymology is rather napé ‘hand’ (or perhaps napsú ‘finger’) and čík’ala and yuŋká/waŋká ‘to lie’. Note that napčhóka ‘palm’ has aspirated čh while napčíyuŋka has a plain one. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 19:56:25 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:56:25 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <007401ceafeb$cb80bbf0$628233d0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Good point. I wasn't aware of the aspiration difference. I do think the etymology relates to napé ‘hand’ in any event. Aspirated napchoka has to be a contraction of napV and choka because otherwise the pch cluster wouldn't be possible. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively Bob, I wonder if the etymology is rather napé ‘hand’ (or perhaps napsú ‘finger’) and čík’ala and yuŋká/waŋká ‘to lie’. Note that napčhóka ‘palm’ has aspirated čh while napčíyuŋka has a plain one. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:22:21 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:22:21 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370DEF9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:24:08 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:24:08 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. Message-ID: > Now you've got me confused, Bob. This started with miyoglas'in being either four or five syllables, you opting for 5, Willem, me and Pam opting for four. Now you seem to be saying the gl and bl are syllables phonologically but not phonetically, because there is no phonological schwah between b or g and l, but because there used to be a vowel there, we still have to count as if the schwah were a real vowel? Uh, no, we're not counting schwas as anything at all. They should never have gotten into the discussion at all. They're a red herring from day two of any introductory Dakota class. > I understand the argument that word-initial bl and gl with accent on the vowel after them derive from words that used to have two syllables, stressed on the second. Then you’re not confused, David. You understand the whole argument. > That is certainly one source for words with first-syllable stress. But as soon as the unaccented vowel disappears, doesn't it stay disappeared both phonetically and phonologically? No, B alternates with wa- ‘absolutive’ and wa- ‘1st sg.agent’ (and in some languages, wi-‘animate absolutive’) and the G alternates with ki- ‘possessive’ and 'vertitive'. > Aren't you confusing diachrony with synchronic phonology? No, I think that argument was settled in the 1960s in papers like Larry Hyman’s “How Abstract is Phonology?” and similar such. James Harris virtually reconstructed proto-Indo-European in order to explain synchronic Spanish phonology. These trends come and go, but I’m sure you’ve taught and understand them just as I have. > I don't see how you can claim that miyoglas'in has five syllables synchronically. Oh, I could justify the 4 syllable solution by simply asking any undergraduate student how many syllables the word has. But if Jan is right, and óglas'iŋ is derived from ókas'iŋ, then the G of glas'iŋ is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. From earlier: “The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself” (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ‘vertitive’, ‘reflexive’ or ‘possessive’ here? I guess it doesn’t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Perhaps this clarifies my point of view. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:33:46 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:33:46 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <1f5b83a7ba10477fa1459c3fefea92c6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Ø I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:48:31 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:48:31 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E04A@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Thu Sep 12 21:51:20 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:51:20 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <1534932c10b94e939f5c44fa598fd4b6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: It does work for ‘sit’ - that’s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi… ‘I’m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited – I’m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it’s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it’s a REAL stretch, but linking up ‘sitting’ in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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 rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 23:43:29 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:43:29 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E012@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø But if Jan is right, and óglas'iŋ is derived from ókas'iŋ, then the G of glas'iŋ is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. From earlier: “The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself” (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ‘vertitive’, ‘reflexive’ or ‘possessive’ here? I guess it doesn’t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Okay, just to throw one more monkey-wrench into this discussion... I believe something else has happened here, external to a simple historical development of Proto-Siouan phonology. The *ki- prefix that goes to our G is what should make the verb vertitive, reflexive or possessive. But the GL cluster comes from the sequence *ki + *r-, where *r- is most often the beginning of either *re, ‘go’, or of the instrumental prefixes *ru- ‘by hand’ or *ra- ‘by mouth: *ki-ru- => *kru- => GLu-, *ki-ra- => *kra- => GLa-. In this case though, the instrumental prefix of the base verb is *ka-, ‘by force’. Sticking vertitive *ki- in front of that should get *ki-ka- => *k-ka- => *kka- (?). But in Omaha at least, and apparently in Dakotan as well, it doesn’t come out that way. Rather, the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of a *ka- verb is GLa-, just the same as for a *ra- verb. I was astonished to learn that in Omaha a few years ago, but internalized it well enough that I didn’t think twice about declaring ókas’iŋ to be the base verb of vertitive óglas’iŋ. In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 00:44:37 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:44:37 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E012@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ø From earlier: “The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself” (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ‘vertitive’, ‘reflexive’ or ‘possessive’ here? I guess it doesn’t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Bob- Actually, I think I’m likely the one responsible for the above quote. ‘Vertitive’ is still a fairly new term for me. I puzzled for a while as to which term would be best to use in that case, and hit on that one, thinking along the lines of ‘self-look’, or ‘betake oneself looking’, or perhaps ‘back-look’. I probably should have cast it as ‘ogle oneself’, which would have made it reflexive. Anyway, please don’t blame the Dakotanists for my questionable choice of linguistic terminology! Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 01:11:28 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:11:28 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I’m going to cover a few points here. Please bear with me since I’m not at the office at the moment so I am going from memory. 1) First off, Jill apologized for not being able to use eng here. If it is the standard practice to use a linguistic alphabet in this list, then I’ll work on doing so. I’d asked Jill for some advice while we were in D.C. on which alphabet to use and she recommended the APA. I’ve been meaning to start recording Otoe-Missouria language information in that system so I might as well start getting used to it. I’ll be honest and admit that I really don’t know where to begin beyond reading what Wikipedia has to say about it. As I understand it, there is some wiggle-room to assign phonemes to characters so long as you maintain a “key”. I don’t know that I’d want to tweak an established system though. Besides, I am still getting used to the terminology used in this list like palatalization, philatelist, and monosodium glutamate. Any advice in this area would be greatly appreciated J. 2) The idea of “naŋe” (<--- my first attempt at the APA!) is a fascinating one to indicate “sit” with respect to how the one finger is kept down to indicate nine. I’ll keep an eye out for anything along these lines. The mention of “nanye” possibly being a dialectal variant of “naŋe” would definitely fit here. I used to think that –ñe (I hope that’s appropriate use of the APA) was Ioway and –ŋe was Otoe-Missouria (as illustrated in the 1977 Otoe-Iowa Language Book I that was mentioned) and what little crossover I saw Ichalked up to the two tribes being in contact with one another. But the longer I’ve worked here, the more I’ve begun to challenge that assumption. More and more tribal members are coming forward with terms like “suñe” (horse) rather than “suŋe”, “wañe” (man) rather than “waŋe”, or the slightly different “xañe” (big) rather than “xanje” (I used to think that last comparison was the be-all-end-all telltale sign of what was Ioway and what was Otoe-Missouria.). These same tribal members are adamant about not having any Ioway ancestry and/or little to no contact with them (would be hard to verify that claim, I would imagine). But still, it is enough to get my attention. Then I came across information in An Account of an Expedition from Pittsburg to the Rocky Mountains (James) that mentioned Otoe and Ioway languages being more similar to each other and with Missouria being the oddball (page 65). Missouria is described as being more nasal. With that thought in mind, I’ve often idly wondered if –ñe was perhaps Otoe and Ioway and –ŋe (which seems more “nasal” to me) was maybe Missouria and that perhaps since possibly the largest contributor of modern Otoe-Missouria language information (Truman Dailey) claimed Missouria, perhaps this might be why we see –ŋe so much in modern Otoe-Missouria material. This is just idle speculation on my part. Especially since this same source also mentions that by this date, Missouria children were starting to use the Otoe dialect. Not to mention there are plenty of representations of “ŋ” in older documentation. But it does explain the largely absent (but not totally, obviously) “ŋ” from Ioway. Still, this is the first documentation I’ve come across that actually describes a specific difference between Otoe and Missouria. The other sources I’ve read simply say they are the same language but slightly different. It also mentions the terms for “friend” being In-ta-ro and In-ta-ra coming from Otoe and Ioway respectively. I don’t remember everything from the page. I’ll get the information from work tomorrow and email a copy of that page for those who are interested. 3) Going to respond to the appropriate email for a bit of info on bl/br/gl/gr J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 4:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ‘sit’ - that’s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi… ‘I’m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited – I’m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it’s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it’s a REAL stretch, but linking up ‘sitting’ in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Ø I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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 WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:20:59 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:20:59 +0000 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary Message-ID: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbec1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mithun at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:29:00 2013 From: mithun at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (Marianne Mithun) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:29:00 -0700 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB515@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Oh dear, how sad. Thanks for letting us know, Willem. Marianne --On Friday, September 13, 2013 1:20 AM +0000 "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: > > http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbe > c1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 01:32:18 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:32:18 -0500 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <28442938f998491a99a5fef568779d29@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I’ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it J. I first noticed the idea of what I thought was one syllable like “gre” actually being something like “guh-lay” (to use the spelling that Wistrand-Robinson used in her Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I (1977) to describe the pronunciation for “hawk”). I didn’t think too much about it at the time. I noticed it but didn’t worry about it. And when I help others learn Otoe-Missouria, I don’t bother with splitting it up and just call “gre” one syllable since I don’t want to over-complicate things for learners. Back on topic… I noticed this a while ago but couldn’t make sense of it. Then I remembered how Wistrand-Robinson separated those syllables. Currently our spellings for 8 and 10 are: grerabri – eight (sometimes that final “i” is nasalized) grebrą – ten But Hamilton has in his An Ioway Grammar on page 26: kræ-ra-ba-ne – eight kræ-pa-na – ten At first I couldn’t figure out what the extra syllables were doing on there. What did they mean? Then I realized that “bri” was simply “ba-ne” pronounced quickly and so was “brą (pa-na). This leads me to think that these two distinct syllables were at one time individually pronounced. The reason I say this is because there is a clue in those words with at the beginning with “kr.” Hamilton doesn’t split “kr” into two syllables. I would assume that if they were enunciated separately, he would have done so like he did at the ends of the words. So it would appear that we had two syllables in the past which are now “one” (though still technically two if I am understanding these emails correctly). I should also mention that Hamilton conjugates the heck out of “grahi” (love) throughout that book without ever separating the “gr.” Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into “one” that some of you have mentioned? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 6:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. Ø But if Jan is right, and óglas'iŋ is derived from ókas'iŋ, then the G of glas'iŋ is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. >From earlier: “The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ókas(‘)iŋ, ‘to look into’. In its vertitive form óglasiŋ, it should mean ‘to look into at oneself” (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ‘vertitive’, ‘reflexive’ or ‘possessive’ here? I guess it doesn’t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Okay, just to throw one more monkey-wrench into this discussion... I believe something else has happened here, external to a simple historical development of Proto-Siouan phonology. The *ki- prefix that goes to our G is what should make the verb vertitive, reflexive or possessive. But the GL cluster comes from the sequence *ki + *r-, where *r- is most often the beginning of either *re, ‘go’, or of the instrumental prefixes *ru- ‘by hand’ or *ra- ‘by mouth: *ki-ru- => *kru- => GLu-, *ki-ra- => *kra- => GLa-. In this case though, the instrumental prefix of the base verb is *ka-, ‘by force’. Sticking vertitive *ki- in front of that should get *ki-ka- => *k-ka- => *kka- (?). But in Omaha at least, and apparently in Dakotan as well, it doesn’t come out that way. Rather, the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of a *ka- verb is GLa-, just the same as for a *ra- verb. I was astonished to learn that in Omaha a few years ago, but internalized it well enough that I didn’t think twice about declaring ókas’iŋ to be the base verb of vertitive óglas’iŋ. In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From STrechter at CSUCHICO.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:44:02 2013 From: STrechter at CSUCHICO.EDU (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:44:02 -0700 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB515@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Alyce was a formidable soul and intellect. Again, thanks for posting, Willem. On Sep 12, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "De Reuse, Willem" > wrote: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbec1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 03:15:03 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 03:15:03 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <002901ceb021$15df7b20$419e7160$@com> Message-ID: Ø Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into “one” that some of you have mentioned? Actually, I think the two syllables mashing into “one” is supposed to have happened perhaps a couple of thousand years ago, at least by the time of the language ancestral to MVS. What you’re probably seeing there is confusion over how to write the schwa that is still floating between the two consonants, where the vowel of the first syllable used to be. Schwa is an unformed vowel sound, in this case pretty short, that puts a little breathing space between the b or g and the following r. It’s that “uh” in “guh-lay”. In English, it’s like the sound of the “a” in “probably” or the “u” in “illustrate” or “supposed to”. In writing Siouan words, people have sometimes tried to put it in. We have both the Oglala tribe and the town of Ogallala that was named after them. How much of a schwa there is might vary. It’s an interesting observation you’ve made that Hamilton noted enough of a vowel sound between b and r to add an ‘a’ to represent it, but never did the same for the sound between g and r. What do you notice from your speakers? Is there a difference like that? Ø I’ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it ☺. Much of what we are talking about is obviously beyond us too. Let us know when you figure it out. :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:32 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. I’ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it ☺. I first noticed the idea of what I thought was one syllable like “gre” actually being something like “guh-lay” (to use the spelling that Wistrand-Robinson used in her Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I (1977) to describe the pronunciation for “hawk”). I didn’t think too much about it at the time. I noticed it but didn’t worry about it. And when I help others learn Otoe-Missouria, I don’t bother with splitting it up and just call “gre” one syllable since I don’t want to over-complicate things for learners. Back on topic… I noticed this a while ago but couldn’t make sense of it. Then I remembered how Wistrand-Robinson separated those syllables. Currently our spellings for 8 and 10 are: grerabri – eight (sometimes that final “i” is nasalized) grebrą – ten But Hamilton has in his An Ioway Grammar on page 26: kræ-ra-ba-ne – eight kræ-pa-na – ten At first I couldn’t figure out what the extra syllables were doing on there. What did they mean? Then I realized that “bri” was simply “ba-ne” pronounced quickly and so was “brą (pa-na). This leads me to think that these two distinct syllables were at one time individually pronounced. The reason I say this is because there is a clue in those words with at the beginning with “kr.” Hamilton doesn’t split “kr” into two syllables. I would assume that if they were enunciated separately, he would have done so like he did at the ends of the words. So it would appear that we had two syllables in the past which are now “one” (though still technically two if I am understanding these emails correctly). I should also mention that Hamilton conjugates the heck out of “grahi” (love) throughout that book without ever separating the “gr.” Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into “one” that some of you have mentioned? Sky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Sep 13 07:08:23 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 02:08:23 -0500 Subject: nine as one missing In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hoocąk’s number nine is such a case, too. hižąkicųšgųnį - hižą (ONE) - ki- cųųšgųnį (be.without) it’s really funny when students have to say 999 because it’s extra long... - Iren Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Subject: Re: Borrowings. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn’t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me “nanye” (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to “nanyi” (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of “sanke” they had “nanye.” They didn’t miss a beat either. I haven’t come across this term before. I don’t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English “nine.” I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn’t a “let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words” sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I’m going to have to see about working with this individual more J. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual “sanke.” I can’t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I’ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it’ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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 Fri Sep 13 07:55:37 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:55:37 +0200 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <28442938f998491a99a5fef568779d29@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Rory, If the proposed etymology of míyoglas’iŋ is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaksá ‘to cut sth’ --> glaksá ‘to cut one’s own’ kahíŋta ‘to sweep sth’ –> glahíŋta ‘to sweep one’s own’ okáštaŋ ‘to pour sth into’ --> ogláštaŋ ‘to pour one’s own into’ This is why I think that oglás’iŋ (possessive) comes from okás’iŋ, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan Rory wrote: >> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. >> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. >> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 10:44:11 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 05:44:11 -0500 Subject: nine as one missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was sent an email yesterday stemming from this conversation and my mention of an Otoe-Missouria tribal member giving me the term “nanye” for nine. They mentioned Osage being along the lines of what was mentioned below (IE ten less one) and they asked me if Otoe-Missouria did that. I told them that to my knowledge it did not but I would keep an eye out for it. After all, “sanke” (the “regular” term for nine) as well as the new “nanye” don’t suggest anything to me about being “ten less one.” But then I gave my two cents to the conversation about bl/br/gl/gr. I mentioned an example using our current terms for eight and ten (grerabri and grebrą, respectively) and how William Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar spelled these terms out as: kræ-ra-ba-ne – eight kræ-ba-na – ten So I thought it would be interesting to add to the discussion that Hamilton didn’t “mash up” “ba-ne” into “bri” and “ba-na” into “brą” but instead kept them separate while at the same time not separating the “kr” at the beginning of each of those words. But after writing that last night, a thought struck me about those two words are similar. If I were to spell them out the way we would now in our modern orthography but still keep those syllables separate, they would be: grerabani grebaną Those look pretty close. Especially if you underline what is the same: grerabani grebaną Now I am wondering if the words for eight and ten are related. I don’t immediately see how “grerabri/grerabani” could say “eight less two” (maybe it says something else) but IF they are related, I would think that the number for nine would follow suit. But it doesn’t…it jumps to “sanke.” It was mentioned that “sanke” might be a loanword from Algonquin (and maybe vice versa). Going on the TENTATIVE idea of “grerabri” and “grebrą” being somehow related, I would think that “sanke” would be the interloper into Otoe-Missouria (and by extension the other Siouan languages that use its cognates). I never thought to consider those two being related. Having “sanke” in there must have thrown off the pattern-searching algorithm in my brain J. I’ll keep an eye out on this but in the meantime, are there any precedents for a number eight being “ten less two” or anything along those lines? Or is it just a convention for nine? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:08 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: nine as one missing Hoocąk’s number nine is such a case, too. hižąkicųšgųnį - hižą (ONE) - ki- cųųšgųnį (be.without) it’s really funny when students have to say 999 because it’s extra long... - Iren _____ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Subject: Re: Borrowings. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ‘nine’, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn’t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me “nanye” (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to “nanyi” (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of “sanke” they had “nanye.” They didn’t miss a beat either. I haven’t come across this term before. I don’t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English “nine.” I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn’t a “let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words” sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I’m going to have to see about working with this individual more J. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual “sanke.” I can’t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I’ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it’ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *ša·nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *ča·nka, not *ša·nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ­­ 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 Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Fri Sep 13 11:12:31 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:12:31 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jill, I think it’s ingenious and probably right. It’s a grammaticalisation path I hadn’t heard of being explored in the study of numerals til Pam mentioned it. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: 12 September 2013 22:51 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ‘sit’ - that’s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi… ‘I’m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited – I’m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it’s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it’s a REAL stretch, but linking up ‘sitting’ in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 14:08:44 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:08:44 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <003e01ceb056$a2c7c440$e8574cc0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Thanks for that. I’m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. Sorry for the confusion about ‘vertitive’. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn’t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ‘reflexive’ and ‘possessive’. Would this be ‘possessive’, ‘look in at one’s own’, or ‘reflexive’, ‘look in at oneself’? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. Regards, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Jan Ullrich Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, If the proposed etymology of míyoglas’iŋ is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaksá ‘to cut sth’ --> glaksá ‘to cut one’s own’ kahíŋta ‘to sweep sth’ –> glahíŋta ‘to sweep one’s own’ okáštaŋ ‘to pour sth into’ --> ogláštaŋ ‘to pour one’s own into’ This is why I think that oglás’iŋ (possessive) comes from okás’iŋ, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan Rory wrote: >> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. >> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. >> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 13 15:57:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:57:35 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan blúha, núha, yuhá. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so yüzé ‘to get, obtain’ is conjugated 1sg blǘze, 2sg hnǘze, 3sg yüzáabe, 1pl ąyǘzaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:01:51 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:01:51 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <003e01ceb056$a2c7c440$e8574cc0$@org> Message-ID: I agree with you, Jan. This is the construction often called the "reflexive possessive", rather than just the possessive, to emphasise the subject is the possessor. Not sure how ki-ka- became gla-, historically there must have been reanalysis by analogy of some sort... Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:55 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, If the proposed etymology of míyoglas’iŋ is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaksá ‘to cut sth’ --> glaksá ‘to cut one’s own’ kahíŋta ‘to sweep sth’ –> glahíŋta ‘to sweep one’s own’ okáštaŋ ‘to pour sth into’ --> ogláštaŋ ‘to pour one’s own into’ This is why I think that oglás’iŋ (possessive) comes from okás’iŋ, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:05:06 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:05:06 -0600 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <7e9917bd382a43a588606fd917f2bff9@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Rory, I think your idea about an extra intrusive "r" is sort of like one I had a long time ago. In the little paper I wrote for the Eric Hamp festschrift issue of IJAL I dealt with a weird Lakota fact (that is no longer true -- another casualty of bilingual Lakota speakers). Older speakers always changed the dative of "kaga" 'make' into kichaga, with an aspirated ch, instead of the expected kicaga, which would be the normal palatalization of /k/ after /i/. Since /ch/ in Lakota comes from PS *y, I proposed that at some point there must have been a rule that k disappeared after ki and the resulting kia sequence acquired an epenthetic /y/. That epenthetic /y/ was salient enough to be included when other */y/ changed to /ch/. I think I remember finding that there is a Dhegiha /dh/ from the same */y/ -- you can confirm that perhaps. Anyway, your idea that an /r/ got in the picture isn't too far from my idea that we are dealing with a /y/ that appeared between vowels when a /k/ got deleted. If that's true, then we can say that ki > g happened before */y/ in the ka- verbs just as it did in the y- verbs. I do not remember how we sort out the PSI difference between */y/ and */r/, but I do recall that they get mixed up sometimes. Bob, we need you again. Just as a little footnote to the /r/ idea: when I was in grad school I wrote a course paper about whether or not English "speak" is cognate with German "sprechen", given that there is no trace of an /r/ in the English. I discovered that there are several sets of correspondences in Germanic with and without an /r/ in the initial or final cluster. I remember the English doublet "wiggle' and "wriggle", and something about "spark", but the details are in a file cabinet in my office and I'm not there now. I think German "Sprosse" got into the game, as well as some word for a thatched roof. The 19th century writer who brought all of these together concocted a story about primitive folks around a campfire dealing with twigs and sparks and speaking noises that was quite amusing. What he proposed was a sporadic "r-emphatikum" that was used for some words and survived only in some of them in some languages. Perhaps Siouan and Germanic both latched onto an "r-emphatikum". What fun we can have with abstract phonology. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rory Larson wrote: > Jan, > > Thanks for that. I’m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. > > Sorry for the confusion about ‘vertitive’. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn’t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ‘reflexive’ and ‘possessive’. Would this be ‘possessive’, ‘look in at one’s own’, or ‘reflexive’, ‘look in at oneself’? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? > > If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. > > Regards, > Rory > > > From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Jan Ullrich > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM > To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU > Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) > > Rory, > > If the proposed etymology of míyoglas’iŋ is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. > In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: > > kaksá ‘to cut sth’ --> glaksá ‘to cut one’s own’ > kahíŋta ‘to sweep sth’ –> glahíŋta ‘to sweep one’s own’ > okáštaŋ ‘to pour sth into’ --> ogláštaŋ ‘to pour one’s own into’ > > This is why I think that oglás’iŋ (possessive) comes from okás’iŋ, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. > > I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. > > Jan > > > > Rory wrote: > >>> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. > >>> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. > >>> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, > > Rory > > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:10:11 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:10:11 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Willem's comments below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:57 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan blúha, núha, yuhá. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Willem: Good to see we agree on this. That is what you would expect, of Lakota bluha had three syllables. So you would have to say that either bluha has two syllables, or that bluha has three syllables, and the third sylable is stressed. Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so yüzé ‘to get, obtain’ is conjugated 1sg blǘze, 2sg hnǘze, 3sg yüzáabe, 1pl ąyǘzaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Willem: Great. So you could say Kansa is more conservative... Or you could say that the rule ordering was different. Kansa applies 2nd syllable stress rule first, then drops the vowel, whereas Dakotan drops the vowel first, then applies 2nd syllable stress rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:12:35 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:35 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Yes for Omaha: bríze, níze, rizé (or rizá(-i) or rizá-bi), ąríze, etc. It looks like Dakotan and Dhegiha are handling accents differently here. Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:58 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan blúha, núha, yuhá. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so yüzé ‘to get, obtain’ is conjugated 1sg blǘze, 2sg hnǘze, 3sg yüzáabe, 1pl ąyǘzaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Sep 13 16:06:22 2013 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:06:22 +0000 Subject: ki + ka > gla Message-ID: John Koontz had a good explanation of this in one of his papers. I've explained about all I have time for right now about the BL, GL sequences. I might mention that the same kinds of argument apply in the case of PT, PC, PK (where permitted), PS, etc. The P is also a reflex of *wV- and acts as a "syllable" for accent placement. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 18:23:05 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:23:05 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, thanks for your comments. I hope the idea you describe isn't in the past tense, because it makes very good sense to me. In Omaha, we do have /dh/ from epenthetic */y/ in some contexts, but not in that one. There, it's still just epenthetic /y/, which we haven't been recognizing phonemically. Lakota: kaghA kichaghA Omaha: gaghE gi(y)aghE (I'm using /gh/ here for the voiced velar fricative, which you generally use g-with-a-hat for, and we have lately been writing /x/.) The idea I proposed was that the intrusive "r" was an analogical development, while your proposal for *ki-ka- => *ki-ya- => *kya- => gla- is straight phonology. If my idea is shot down, I would certainly favor yours. In fact, I think the two might work together to reinforce each other. I also enjoyed the German "r-emphatikum" discussion. I never heard of that idea before! Best, Rory -----Original Message----- From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:05 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, I think your idea about an extra intrusive "r" is sort of like one I had a long time ago. In the little paper I wrote for the Eric Hamp festschrift issue of IJAL I dealt with a weird Lakota fact (that is no longer true -- another casualty of bilingual Lakota speakers). Older speakers always changed the dative of "kaga" 'make' into kichaga, with an aspirated ch, instead of the expected kicaga, which would be the normal palatalization of /k/ after /i/. Since /ch/ in Lakota comes from PS *y, I proposed that at some point there must have been a rule that k disappeared after ki and the resulting kia sequence acquired an epenthetic /y/. That epenthetic /y/ was salient enough to be included when other */y/ changed to /ch/. I think I remember finding that there is a Dhegiha /dh/ from the same */y/ -- you can confirm that perhaps. Anyway, your idea that an /r/ got in the picture isn't too far from my idea that we are dealing with a /y/ that appeared between vowels when a ! /k/ got deleted. If that's true, then we can say that ki > g happened before */y/ in the ka- verbs just as it did in the y- verbs. I do not remember how we sort out the PSI difference between */y/ and */r/, but I do recall that they get mixed up sometimes. Bob, we need you again. Just as a little footnote to the /r/ idea: when I was in grad school I wrote a course paper about whether or not English "speak" is cognate with German "sprechen", given that there is no trace of an /r/ in the English. I discovered that there are several sets of correspondences in Germanic with and without an /r/ in the initial or final cluster. I remember the English doublet "wiggle' and "wriggle", and something about "spark", but the details are in a file cabinet in my office and I'm not there now. I think German "Sprosse" got into the game, as well as some word for a thatched roof. The 19th century writer who brought all of these together concocted a story about primitive folks around a campfire dealing with twigs and sparks and speaking noises that was quite amusing. What he proposed was a sporadic "r-emphatikum" that was used for some words and survived only in some of them in some languages. Perhaps Siouan and Germanic both latched onto an "r-emphatikum". What fun we can have with abstract phonology. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rory Larson wrote: > Jan, > > Thanks for that. I’m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. > > Sorry for the confusion about ‘vertitive’. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn’t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ‘reflexive’ and ‘possessive’. Would this be ‘possessive’, ‘look in at one’s own’, or ‘reflexive’, ‘look in at oneself’? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? > > If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. > > Regards, > Rory > > > From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of > Jan Ullrich > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM > To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU > Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) > > Rory, > > If the proposed etymology of míyoglas’iŋ is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. > In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: > > kaksá ‘to cut sth’ --> glaksá ‘to cut one’s own’ > kahíŋta ‘to sweep sth’ –> glahíŋta ‘to sweep one’s own’ > okáštaŋ ‘to pour sth into’ --> ogláštaŋ ‘to pour one’s own into’ > > This is why I think that oglás’iŋ (possessive) comes from okás’iŋ, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. > > I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. > > Jan > > > > Rory wrote: > >>> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn’t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. > >>> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **óyas’iŋ. The vertitive form of this would be óglas’iŋ, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miyóglas’iŋ. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miyóglas’iŋ which is based on ókas’iŋ. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miyóglas’iŋ, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. > >>> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for >>> miyóglas’iŋ, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, > > Rory > > From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Fri Sep 13 21:35:27 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:35:27 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I wouldn't say "moved rightward" but "kept it where it is in the unprefixed form" since for us, at least, the prefix is a consonant and not a syllable. This difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha is obviously the reason all of this discussion has been so confused. In Lakota, bl clearly does NOT function like an underlying syllable for stress assignment purposes, as Willem and I asserted at the beginning. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: >> Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since > the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three > syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. > > That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan blúha, núha, yuhá. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? > > Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so yüzé ‘to get, obtain’ is conjugated 1sg blǘze, 2sg hnǘze, 3sg yüzáabe, 1pl ąyǘzaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. > > > Bob > From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 14 00:17:41 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:17:41 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I wouldn't say "moved rightward" but "kept it where it is in the unprefixed form" since for us, at least, the prefix is a consonant and not a syllable. This difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha is obviously the reason all of this discussion has been so confused. In Lakota, bl clearly does NOT function like an underlying syllable for stress assignment purposes, as Willem and I asserted at the beginning. Yes, that's partly to blame for the confusion, but there does seem to be a difference in the way Dakotan treats 1st person sg. forms of Y-stem verbs, like bluhA, on the one hand and the way it treats lexemes in which initial bl- is always a part of the stem on the other hand. Where bl- is the product of 1sg inflection, accent always behaves according to the 2nd syll. assignment rule. Where bl- is organic to the word/stem it treats b as a separate syllable from l in most cases. I used the Univ. of Colorado Siouan Archive's version of Buechel for the statistics. The data follow. The items that do not support the two-syllable analysis of bl- are highlighted. Most such exceptions seem to be reduplications, i.e., not really exceptions, but there are several prominent cases where accent has shifted to the second syllable, and in those instances I think we do have to speak of a shift or movement. blabláta Engl. an upland plain class n. p. 110 blaská Engl. flat, as a board class adj. v. also bláska E.g. blaskáska class adj. red. p. 110 blaskáya Engl. flatly, on the flat side class adv. p. 110 bláxa Engl. broad at one end, tapering class adj. v. also blága p. 110 bláya Engl. level, plain class adj. E.g. - hįgla ‘he feels good E.g. Wašpąka ognake kʼų tąyą bláye Engl. a plain class n. p. 110 bláye zitkátacą hu stóla Engl. hairy prairie clover petalostemum villosum the pulse bláyela Engl. levelly, plain class adj. p. 110 bláyeya Engl. evenly class adv. p. 110 blazáhą Engl. ripped open of itself, torn open class part. p. 110 ble Engl. a lake class n. p. 110 blebléca class adj. red. of bleca p. 110 bleblécahą class part. red. of blecahą́ p. 110 bleblešya Engl. to amuse one class v. red. v. also blesya E.g. bleblesicʼiya ‘he amuses, blecá Engl. getting poorer and poorer, as from sickness class adv. v. also mableca p. 110 blecáhą Engl. broken of itself class part. p. 110 bléga Engl. the American white pelican, a large whitish water-bird with white spots class bleíyoka Engl. little pools alongside a creek filled with weeds class n. v. also miniyušpala bleíyoškokpa Engl. a buffalo wallow or hole where the water gathers after a rain class blekhíyute Engl. an isthmus, a strait or channel in a lake class n. v. also ble and kiyute p. bléla Engl. a little lake, a pond class n. p. 111 bleókaxmi Engl. a bog or beech class n. p. 111 bleóškokpa Engl. a lake basin class n. p. 111 bleš class adj. v. also cont. of bleza p. 111 blesyá Engl. make clear, cause to recover from stupidity class v.a. E.g. bleswáya Engl. bleyáta Engl. at the lake class adv. p. 111 bléza Engl. clear, clear-sighted class adj. E.g. išta - ‘sober E.g. mabléza E.g. wicableza sʼe bléza, but more probably blóza Engl. a loon, the great Northern Diver class n. p. 111 blézesni Engl. desperate, reckless class adj. E.g. - sʼe šką ‘he acted excitedly p. 111 blézicʼiya Engl. recruit, restore one's health class v. p. 111 blihéca Engl. be lively or active, industrious E.g. mablíheca E.g. niblíheca E.g. ųblíhecapi blihéicʼiya Engl. take exercise, practise, exert one's self class v. reflex. p. 111 blihel´heca class v. v. also red. of bliheca p. 111 blihel´ya Engl. in a lively manner class adv. p. 111 blihéya Engl. make active, industrious class v.a. E.g. blihéwaya E.g. blihéicʼiya, or blihícʼiya bló Engl. a ridge or range of hills the word has been used with reference to the Black bloákatą Engl. cultivate potatoes, by making hills around plants class v. p. 111 bloáliya Engl. along the ridge class adv. p. 111 bloblóska Engl. the trachea tube class n. p. 111 blogyą́ka Engl. remain at home when others go out to hunt class v.n. E.g. blogmą́ka E.g. blóhu Engl. potato-tops edible class n. p. 111 bloípatą Engl. a potato masher class n. p. 111 bloká Engl. the male of animals class n. p. 111 blokásak Engl. a belch class n. p. 111 blokáska Engl. hiccup, hiccough class v.i. and t. E.g. blowákaska E.g. blowakaska lo talo blokécokąyą Engl. mid-summer class n. p. 111 blokéhą Engl. last summer class n. p. 111 blokétu Engl. summer, next summer, this summer class n. p. 111 blókitʼa Engl. be very tired or weary, as by walking, carrying a load class v. E.g. blómakitʼe blopáhi agúyapi Engl. potato-picking bread class n. p. 111 blotáhųka Engl. a chief, the leader of a war party class n. E.g. Tuwa wazuya itącą ca he - . blową́žila Engl. a divide, a single upland plain between streams, top of a ridge class n. v. blóza Engl. the pelican a big gray-black water bird with a long bill the Indians used to blú Engl. powdered, pulverized, fine class adj. E.g. aguyapi - ‘flour E.g. maka - ‘dust p. 111 blublú Engl. mellow and dry, as apples or turnips class adj. red. v. also blu class v. 1st pers. bluyéla Engl. in a powdered, pulverized condition class adv. v. also - kaga p. 112 mna Engl. to swell class v.n. E.g. šupe mnala yelo. v. also yumna p. 337 mnahą́ Engl. a rip class n. Engl. ripped of itself class part. E.g. mnahą́hą v. also red. of mnaícʼiya Engl. to gather for one's self class v. p. 337 mnakhíya Engl. to take up a collection for one; to gather one's own class v.a. E.g. Waxpaye mnaxcáxca Engl. the prairie lily the word is perhaps not used class n. p. 337 mnayą́ Engl. to gather together, collect class v.a. E.g. mnawaya E.g. mnaųyąpi E.g. mnayą́pi mni Engl. water class n. Engl. to lay up to dry, spread out in the sun to dry class v.a. mni v. also yumni p. 337 mniáli Engl. To travel over the water. class v. E.g. žąxpą - įyąke i.e. ‘moving over the mnihípi sʼe Engl. Flooding, seeping in, as water into a house. class adv. p. 815 mnixáxa Engl. To run with water. class v. E.g. Išta - mąke ‘My eyes are running with mniyósniya Engl. To make the water very cool, to cool water, to become cool water class mniyóxcaya Engl. Full of water, tears. class adv. E.g. Išta - waceyakiye i.e. ‘with eyes full of mnúga Engl. to crunch, as a horse does in eating corn class v. p. 340 mnúmnus Engl. to creak class v. E.g. - hįgla ‘to creak suddenly, as a piece of wood when mnux v. also cont. of mnuga E.g. mnuxmnúga class v. red. of mnuga v. also mnuga v. also -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 15:38:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:38:23 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB32E@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I've had a couple of requests for my data sets from the various dictionaries, so here are the BL/BN/MN sets from 4 languages. Rory says that Omaha matches the other Dhegiha sets. These are nothing but the pertinent entries culled from lexica by Buechel, Quintero and Rankin for the 4 languages. As David points out, the Dakotan data show clearly how phonological restructuring takes place. Enjoy, Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of De Reuse, Willem [WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ‘water’. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem’s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BL stems.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 330315 bytes Desc: BL stems.pdf URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 15:55:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:55:23 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, Thanks for this. Comment follows. Bob > Hoocąk grizzly bear is mąąco (definitely with a voiceless affricate) This is the word that has /th/ or the derivative /ch/ is ALL the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages. So the /ch/ does NOT become IPA [ʤ] in this particular case even though these voiceless aspirates usually come up as voiced stops in Chiwere-Hochunk. It's an interesting exception. I'm guessing it's the same in Chiwere. > As for cow elk, I’m not aware of there being a specific word for a female elk, generally elk is hųųwą OK, that's the cognate that goes with Dhegiha oophą and it seems to show a reflex of what would have been /b/, as expected. So 'elk' isn't exceptional. In the plains languages it's usually 'cow elk' and the bull is something like he xaka. Bob > The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Mon Sep 16 16:05:43 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:05:43 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does this shifting mentioned here have an official name? The reason I ask is I have been working on a parsing program to help me translate sources like Merrill and Hamilton. I’ve gotten very familiar with their respective orthographies, but sometimes an obvious “translation” doesn’t appear in my head. So while I was bored on the plane to the Breath of Life this past summer in D.C., I began writing this program (Jill Greer got to see it in action in its infancy). What the program does is take in a particular source’s orthography and converts it into ours for easier reading (and therefore translating). And where the source could go either way (for example, Merrill’s “h” could either be an “h” or an “x”), the program cranks out all of the possibilities. For example, Merrill has an individual’s name as “Mehlhunca” in his diary. Input that into the program and you get 8 possibilities (because 3 of those characters can go one of two ways, therefore 2 x 2 x 2 = 8). The output would be: mihahąnche mihahąnje mihaxąnche mihaxąnje mixahąnche mixahąnje mixaxąnche mixaxąnje Now I can use these to try to figure out what they say. Now I can eliminate what I don’t want and work with the others. Turns out number 4 is what works for me. The output “mihaxąnje” is actually Miha Xąnje (Big Second-Born Daughter (an Otoe chief)). So if I’d been having trouble with “Mehlhunca”, I could use this to help. Now that the explanation is out of the way, I can use this same kind of parsing to work with the “shifting” that we’ve been talking about. What I’d like to know is if there is a sort of list of shifting guidelines (I know things are rarely locked in stone.) that I could use to attempt to pattern out the shifts in the language. As was mentioned by Rory: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [ð] Now I can take matches like these and use them to try to work backwards in some situations and forwards in others. So let’s say I didn’t know what “maðe” meant and wanted to browse possible cognates. The “ð” would be linked to “z” (using the above guidelines) and would give me “maze” as a possibility. Then if I found “maze” in Ponca and saw it was translated as iron/metal, that would be pretty good evidence for that translation to apply to my “maðe.” If I want to get fancy (maybe later down the road ☺) I can try to calculate the timeframe for multiple shifts using the documentation as a guide. For example, it looks to be about 100 (or slightly less) years to shift from “s” to “th.” I’m basing that on the name “Wathake Ruje” (Raw Eater) which was listed in the late 1800s but was also rendered as “Wasake Ruje” in Stephen Long’s material from 1817 (two separate individuals). So what I’m after is a list of guidelines for these shifts. As Rory mentioned, d/t can shift to ch/j when followed by a “front vowel.” Is there a list like this out there that I can plug into my program? Ultimately I’d like to link this program to a Siouan dictionary file and anything that is outputted can be checked against that file for a match (yet another feature for down the road…will need to have a Siouan dictionary, first!). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:27 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Sky, Ø Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: Ø Ø “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. Ø Ø te/che – buffalo Ø inde/inje – face Ø ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) Ø tade/taje – wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn’t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. Ø Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: Ø Ø mase/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø si/ði – yellow Ø Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ç. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: Ø mąze/maðe – metal Ø ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) Ø si/thi – foot Ø zi/ði – yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [ð] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. Ø All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: Ø Ø sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) Ø nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) Ø nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) Ø In general, I think you’re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ‘black’ is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman’s name Mi-sebe, meaning “The Dark of the Moon”. I’m sure your linguist friend is correct about “thi-pi” meaning ‘they live’, or rather ‘they dwell’. I’ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ‘house’ or as the verb ‘dwell’. Ø Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? Ø Ø What do you guys think? Ø Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hoocąk, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ‘you’ and ‘we’, and in Hoocąk, ‘I’, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ‘we’ and ‘you’. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hoocąk-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ‘you’, ‘we’, and perhaps ‘I’. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it’s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the –wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning –wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of –wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ☺. Since I’ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I’ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has “ch” or “j”, Ponca tends to have “d” or “t”. For example: “Ponca/Otoe-Missouria” formatting in the list below. te/che – buffalo inde/inje – face ti/chi – house/live (the context of “live” here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria…nowadays this mostly refers to “house”) tade/taje – wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has “ð (dh)” or “th”, Ponca tends to have “s”. For example: mase/maðe – metal ska/thka – white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use “ska”) si/thi – foot si/ði – yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of “s” where nowadays we have ð or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of –wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term “tipi” literally said “they-live” (I haven’t studied Lakota so I can’t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term “chi” does carry a context of “live.” But the ending “-pi” had me curious because of our –wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe – black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped…an older form for “thewe” is “sewe” which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe – two (the “nomba” is based on Maximilian/Thwaites’ spelling) nombe/nawe – hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton’s entry of “wą” (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear “bą” around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual “-wi” in question to be a form of the Lakota “-pi” that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does “-pi” have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to “they” when “they” are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ☺. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Ø Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hoocąk perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don’t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/jąą, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ‘standing’ positionals, tʰe and tʰaⁿ. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */tʰ/ should stay /tʰ/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hoocąk, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hoocąk. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hoocąk. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always nąąk (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is hająwi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/jąą at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hoocąk ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hoocąk ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ­­ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Mon Sep 16 17:15:16 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:15:16 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys ☺). I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Jill, I think it’s ingenious and probably right. It’s a grammaticalisation path I hadn’t heard of being explored in the study of numerals til Pam mentioned it. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: 12 September 2013 22:51 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ‘sit’ - that’s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi… ‘I’m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited – I’m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it’s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it’s a REAL stretch, but linking up ‘sitting’ in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely nąŋe, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napcóka is 'palm' and yųka and wąka are ‘to lie’ in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You’re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I’ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I’m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn’t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It’s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ‘nine’. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ‘nine’ in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 16 17:31:54 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:31:54 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370F80A@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks very much for this, Bob. It is clear that regarding 1dt person inflected Lakota verbs in yu- ya- etc. some restructuring went on. It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. See for example: mnúga Engl. to crunch, as a horse does in eating corn CLASS v. p. 340 mnux v. also cont. of mnuga E.g. mnuxmnúga CLASS v. red. of mnuga v. also mnuga v. also yamnúmnuga E.g. mnuxyéla ‘in a crunching way CLASS adv. p. 340 Buechel does not show ablauting -A consistently, but the New Lakota Dictionary does, so we have mnúgA. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:38 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. I've had a couple of requests for my data sets from the various dictionaries, so here are the BL/BN/MN sets from 4 languages. Rory says that Omaha matches the other Dhegiha sets. These are nothing but the pertinent entries culled from lexica by Buechel, Quintero and Rankin for the 4 languages. As David points out, the Dakotan data show clearly how phonological restructuring takes place. Enjoy, Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of De Reuse, Willem [WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ‘water’. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem’s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 21:38:39 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369DAA53A342@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys :)). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 22:03:41 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:03:41 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FBC3C@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 xé:be KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI a tutí xépi OF a túti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 22:06:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:06:23 +0000 Subject: Re "ablaut" and "consonant final roots". Message-ID: As usual, I forgot my attachment. Here it is, as promised. Many of you have seen this draft before. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ABLAUT in MVS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162756 bytes Desc: ABLAUT in MVS.pdf URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 16 23:12:31 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:12:31 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC69@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 xé:be KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI a tutí xépi OF a túti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 17 00:21:03 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:21:03 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC12@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw “no-wunk” as the Hocąk term for eight, my first thought was the OM term “nuwe/nowe” and how the listed “nope” (as listed in Long’s list for Hocąk “two”) could shift to “nowe” (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my “10 minus 2” idea. It’s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That’s why I try to keep my ideas tentative J. I see what you’re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The “gre” you mention makes me think of the “agrį” that is used when you pass ten (IE “grebrą agrį iyąnki” for eleven, “grebrą agrį nuwe” for twelve, etc.). Now I don’t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where “agrį danyi” could somehow shift into “grerabri” (assuming “gre-“ is related to “agrį”). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of “grebrą agrį iyąnki” (11) omits the “grebrą” and just uses the “agrį iyąnki.” But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and “sagwe” moved in somehow, I’m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the “partial quinary” counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 17 02:23:17 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:23:17 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FBCCE@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Yes. It worked so well that I suspect Dakota DID loss final in accented -e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 xé:be KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI a tutí xépi OF a túti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 17 02:26:29 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:26:29 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Make that UNaccented e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "Rankin, Robert L." wrote: Yes. It worked so well that I suspect Dakota DID loss final in accented -e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 xé:be KS gá:γe ǰü:ǰe OS ká:γe cü:ce xé:pe QU ká:γe títte BI a tutí xépi OF a túti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 17 07:51:25 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:51:25 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hooca=?utf-8?Q?=CC=A8k?= In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC12@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Sky & Bob, I had already posted what number nine was in Hoocąk before this question came up, so I’m a bit confused. Anyway, here are for your reference numbers 1 through 10, 20 & 30 in Hoocąk 1 hižąkiira [= one(hižą)-only(kiira)] 2 nųųp 3 taanį 4 joop 5 saacą 6 hakewe 7 šaagowį 8 haruwąk 9 hižąkicųšgųnį [= hižą(one)-ki-cųųšgųnį(be.without)] 10 kerepąnąižą [= kerepąną(10)-hižą(one)] 20 kerepąnąnųųp (2 10s) 30 kerepąnątaanį (3 10s) etc. Those numbers from the old source you cited, Sky, seem to be somewhat corrupted. Best, Iren Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 17 11:43:02 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:43:02 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hooca=?UTF-8?Q?=CC=A8k?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you! I’d done a quick search to see if someone did post the Hoocąk term for nine and didn’t see one but a double-check after your mention of it shows I must have flew right over it. My apologies J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:51 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hoocąk Hi Sky & Bob, I had already posted what number nine was in Hoocąk before this question came up, so I’m a bit confused. Anyway, here are for your reference numbers 1 through 10, 20 & 30 in Hoocąk 1 hižąkiira [= one(hižą)-only(kiira)] 2 nųųp 3 taanį 4 joop 5 saacą 6 hakewe 7 šaagowį 8 haruwąk 9 hižąkicųšgųnį [= hižą(one)-ki-cųųšgųnį(be.without)] 10 kerepąnąižą [= kerepąną(10)-hižą(one)] 20 kerepąnąnųųp (2 10s) 30 kerepąnątaanį (3 10s) etc. Those numbers from the old source you cited, Sky, seem to be somewhat corrupted. Best, Iren _____ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:06:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:06:20 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <000f01ceb33b$cbc6aa40$6353fec0$@com> Message-ID: I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. GLOSS[ eight CH[ gre•rá•brį RR Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe•-rá•wrį OM[ ppeðábðį C PN[ ppe•ðábðį RR KS[ ppe•yá•blį OS[ hpe•ðá•brį QU[ ppedá•bnį ProtoSE[ *pa-ra•nį OF[ pạ́tạnĭ DS-328b OF[ pA´tAnî Swanton 1909-485 TU[ pālán (N); palāni, palāli, palāniq H TU[ pǎlan´ Hw TU[ pelą̈ʹk‘ Sapir TU[ balai´n Fracht TU[ bilaæ:kh, bilæ̨:kh Mithun OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for this numeral is ‘three’, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to {dá•ñį}, not {*ra•brį}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ‘three’) only in OVS and DH. Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ‘eight’ is currently reconstructible. Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:11:17 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:11:17 +0000 Subject: 'seven'. Message-ID: Here are the cognate sets for 'seven'. GLOSS[ seven 1 PSI[ *ša•kú•pa OTHREC[ *sak-ma W-175 PCH[ *šáhpua < possible *šákupVhV (see discussion below) CR[ sáhpua ‘seven’ GG-55, DEC-82 HI[ šáhpua ‘seven’ J MA[ kú•pa ‘seven’ C PDA[ *šakówį LA[ šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ C DA[ šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ R-440 PWC[ *ša•k- CH[ Otoe: są́ʔhmą ‘seven’ C CH[ Iowa: sáhmą ~ šáhmą ‘seven’ RR CH[ Otoe: sá•hmą ~ sáhmą ‘seven’ RR WI[ šaagóowį ‘seven’ KM-2900 PSE[ *sa•ku•mį OF[ †fə́kumi “fạ́kumĭ” ‘seven’ DS-323b OF[ †fákumi “fA´kumî” ‘seven’ SW-1909:485 TU[ †sa•kó•m(į) ~ †sa•kú•m(į) “saagom (N), sagomēi, sāgōmią, sagomíñk” ‘seven’ H. TU[ †sakúm “s’gúm” ‘seven’ Hw. TU[ sakų́ ‘seven’ Sapir TU[ sagóm ‘three, seven’ Frachtenberg COM[ Like several other numbers, ‘seven’ is difficult to reconstruct with certainty. The available forms may represent two stages of development. The less transparent found in CR/HI, MA, CH (three subgroups) may be older. An approximate reconstruction might be {*ša•ku•pa} or {*ša•ku•pą}. DA and WI show an apparently remodeled late form clearly based on {*ša•k-} ‘hand’ and {-wį} ‘one’, based in turn on the hand signal for ‘seven’ in the sign language. The second fist (closed) represents ‘six’ and the same with the index finger extended ‘seven’, i.e., ‘fist + one’. The {-o-} is interpretable as ‘locative’ but may just be a relic of an original, unanalizable {-u-}, folk etymologized as ‘locative {o-}’. The reanalysed form would presumably have diffused through parts of MVS. DH and BI innovate, using an entirely non-cognate, quinary term. The OVS forms look primitive, not remodeled, for two reasons: a) OVS quite regularly shows {*č < **š} in ‘hand’, while ‘seven’ has only {*s}, and b) the {*wį} root, ‘one 2’, seems to be restricted to MVS (and possibly MA); OVS shows only ‘one 1’. Also, shared remodeling in the neighboring DA and WI seems quite ordinary; if the OVS forms are following the same pattern, then it would presumably be a convergence, rather than a shared innovation, and we find that more exceptional. Another possible argument has to do with the {*wį} root itself: this root is one of those where the {*w} does not nasalize to {m}. In CH and OVS, however, the word for ‘seven’ does exhibit this nasalization. We think the DA alternants with first syllable stress are due to contamination with ‘six’, presumably from serial counting. This is one of the terms in which TU |s|, instead of the expected |*č|, corresponds to PSI|*š|. The two long vowels plus the MA form suggest that the word was morphemically complex to begin with. We know that CR/HI |-ua| represents loss of an intervocallic glide -- typically |h|, possibly |w|. We also know that CR/HI |hp| results from a cluster, here most likely |*kp|. That enables us to back up from the attested forms to something like |*šakpuha|. The last steps come from the reasonably well-attested rightward vowel transposition, which generally swaps a |u| for some vowel in the succeeding syllable. The exchanged vowel has evidently been lost. Restoring it gives us |*šakVpuha|, from which undoing rightward vowel transposition gives us |*šakupVha|. The nasality of the PSI final vowel remains unresolved. == GLOSS[ seven 2 PDH[ *hpé•-rǫpa hpe•+'two' PN[ ppé•ðąba ~ ppéąba (fast) ‘seven’ So. Ponca RR OP[ ppéðǫba ‘seven’ C KS[ ppé:yǫba ‘seven’ RR OS[ hpé:ǫpa ‘seven’ RR QU[ ppé:nǫba ‘seven’ RR BI[ †ną́pa-hudi “náⁿpahudí” ‘two’ + ‘stem, bone’ DS-238b COM[ Cf. ‘eight’. In DH and BI the counting system has shifted independently to a partial quinary pattern (similar to neighboring central Algonquian and Muskogean systems). DH {*hpe•-} is unidentified, and apparently unattested outside the counting words. Initial {hC} always indicates a lost initial syllable in DH, so the stem might conceivably be {nąpé} ‘hand’ (i.e., the ‘second hand’ in counting, cf. the use of {*šak-} ‘hand’ in ‘seven 1’), or it might be some other term; at this point it is impossible to recover the missing syllable. BI “náⁿpahudí” ‘two’ + ‘stem, bone’ (DS-238b) shows a morpholexically dissimilar but semantically parallel quinary development. The PDH and BI forms are not cognate. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:13:01 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:13:01 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <000f01ceb33b$cbc6aa40$6353fec0$@com> Message-ID: We haven't identified the gre•- prefix in Chiwere 'eight', but I don't think it's related to agriN 'to sit on'. That's a different root. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Sky Campbell [sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw “no-wunk” as the Hocąk term for eight, my first thought was the OM term “nuwe/nowe” and how the listed “nope” (as listed in Long’s list for Hocąk “two”) could shift to “nowe” (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my “10 minus 2” idea. It’s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That’s why I try to keep my ideas tentative :). I see what you’re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The “gre” you mention makes me think of the “agrį” that is used when you pass ten (IE “grebrą agrį iyąnki” for eleven, “grebrą agrį nuwe” for twelve, etc.). Now I don’t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where “agrį danyi” could somehow shift into “grerabri” (assuming “gre-“ is related to “agrį”). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of “grebrą agrį iyąnki” (11) omits the “grebrą” and just uses the “agrį iyąnki.” But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and “sagwe” moved in somehow, I’m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the “partial quinary” counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes :). Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys :)). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Wed Sep 18 23:24:32 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:24:32 -0700 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC623718C2A@EXCH10-DRMBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I know it's not all that important, but in the oldest Miami-Illinois records, "eight" is para·re. By the late 1700s, it's pala·ni in all dialects. Dave > I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. > > GLOSS[ eight > > CH[ gre•rá•brį RR > > Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe•-rá•wrį > OM[ ppeðábðį C > PN[ ppe•ðábðį RR > KS[ ppe•yá•blį > OS[ hpe•ðá•brį > QU[ ppedá•bnį > > ProtoSE[ *pa-ra•nį > > OF[ pạ́tạnĭ DS-328b > OF[ pA´tAnî Swanton 1909-485 > > TU[ pālán (N); palāni, palāli, palāniq H > TU[ pǎlan´ Hw > TU[ pelą̈ʹk‘ Sapir > TU[ balai´n Fracht > TU[ bilaæ:kh, bilæ̨:kh Mithun > > OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) > > COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for > this numeral is ‘three’, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to > {dá•ñį}, not {*ra•brį}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it > occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ‘three’) only in OVS and DH. > Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from > an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ‘eight’ is currently reconstructible. > > Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. > > Bob > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Thu Sep 19 00:34:32 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:34:32 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC623718C79@EXCH10-DRMBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Wow, quite a lot to take in (referring to the other recent emails as well). I haven’t seen a sense of “to sit on” with the term “agrį.” The sense I am familiar with is along the lines of “over” which is what got me to thinking about the idea of it being related to that prefix “gre-“ when you mentioned the quinary counting system. I was curious if that sense of “over” would have applied 5 digits earlier with that counting system and that maybe for some reason the term for eight was the last remnant of it. But even with the sense of “to sit on” you mentioned, it is used with the current semi-quinary/semi-decimal counting system when the digits “roll over.” I am curious about the sense of “to sit on” with that term, though. Coming at it from an OM point of view, I can see how the prefix “a-“ would indicate “on” but haven’t seen anything along the lines of “grį” to mean sit. The closest thing I can think of that sounds close to “grį” is the verb “gri” which is “to return home” (no idea if they are related or not). Is that sense a general Siouan concept for that term or is it perhaps from the Proto-Siouan you mentioned in the other email? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:13 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. We haven't identified the gre•- prefix in Chiwere 'eight', but I don't think it's related to agriN 'to sit on'. That's a different root. Bob _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Sky Campbell [sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw “no-wunk” as the Hocąk term for eight, my first thought was the OM term “nuwe/nowe” and how the listed “nope” (as listed in Long’s list for Hocąk “two”) could shift to “nowe” (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my “10 minus 2” idea. It’s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That’s why I try to keep my ideas tentative J. I see what you’re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The “gre” you mention makes me think of the “agrį” that is used when you pass ten (IE “grebrą agrį iyąnki” for eleven, “grebrą agrį nuwe” for twelve, etc.). Now I don’t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where “agrį danyi” could somehow shift into “grerabri” (assuming “gre-“ is related to “agrį”). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of “grebrą agrį iyąnki” (11) omits the “grebrą” and just uses the “agrį iyąnki.” But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and “sagwe” moved in somehow, I’m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the “partial quinary” counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I’ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the possibility of “grerabri” being related to “grebrą.” So I thought I’d try to see what Hocąk has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hocąk so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebrą '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I’ve been going through Maximilian and Long’s Otoe language lists lately and thought I’d look there for some Hocąk numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like “sanke.” So based on what’s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like “one” is definitely part of “nine” here. I’m not sure what “(i)ch-o” is doing in there but the “s-co-ne” sure looks like “skunyi” (not) to me. So I’m wondering if this is “one – not – (doing whatever)”. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of “ah-kutch-ah” which Henry Merrell has as “the other side” (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be “one – not – the other side” which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, “Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!” But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like “grerabri.” I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hocąk kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 19 00:41:45 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:41:45 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Every little bit is interesting and helpful. Thanks Dave. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:24 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. I know it's not all that important, but in the oldest Miami-Illinois records, "eight" is para·re. By the late 1700s, it's pala·ni in all dialects. Dave I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. GLOSS[ eight CH[ gre•rá•brį RR Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe•-rá•wrį OM[ ppeðábðį C PN[ ppe•ðábðį RR KS[ ppe•yá•blį OS[ hpe•ðá•brį QU[ ppedá•bnį ProtoSE[ *pa-ra•nį OF[ pạ́tạnĭ DS-328b OF[ pA´tAnî Swanton 1909-485 TU[ pālán (N); palāni, palāli, palāniq H TU[ pǎlan´ Hw TU[ pelą̈ʹk‘ Sapir TU[ balai´n Fracht TU[ bilaæ:kh, bilæ̨:kh Mithun OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for this numeral is ‘three’, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to {dá•ñį}, not {*ra•brį}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ‘three’) only in OVS and DH. Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ‘eight’ is currently reconstructible. Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 19 01:13:51 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 01:13:51 +0000 Subject: Teens in Chiwere. Message-ID: The meaning 'over, on top of' would be derived from the original 'sit on' meaning. I haven't checked Jimm's dictionary to see if Chiwere has the direct descendant, agrį 'sit on'. Nor do I know about Hochunk. The original "teen" formative was closer to ake or aki, but Chiwere and Dhegiha both seem to use 'sit on' instead. The a- of agrį is the locative 'on, upon' and grį is the verb root. It comes out agðį in Omaha and Ponca, aknį in Quapaw and alį in Kansa and Osage. It doesn't appear to be related to -gri or -gre at all. The Chiwere details would have to come from you and Jimm. Sorry about misleading you earlier about 'seven' containing the word for 'two'. That's true of Dhegiha languages but not of Chiwere. My 74 year old memory failed me for a moment. But you have the correct cognate sets now. Bob > I haven’t seen a sense of “to sit on” with the term “agrį.” The sense I am familiar with is along the lines of “over” which is what got me to thinking about the idea of it being related to that prefix “gre-“ when you mentioned the quinary counting system. I was curious if that sense of “over” would have applied 5 digits earlier with that counting system and that maybe for some reason the term for eight was the last remnant of it. But even with the sense of “to sit on” you mentioned, it is used with the current semi-quinary/semi-decimal counting system when the digits “roll over.” I am curious about the sense of “to sit on” with that term, though. Coming at it from an OM point of view, I can see how the prefix “a-“ would indicate “on” but haven’t seen anything along the lines of “grį” to mean sit. The closest thing I can think of that sounds close to “grį” is the verb “gri” which is “to return home” (no idea if they are related or not). Is that sense a general Siouan concept for that term or is it perhaps from the Proto-Siouan you mentioned in the other email? Sky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sschwart at PRINCETON.EDU Thu Sep 19 20:25:35 2013 From: sschwart at PRINCETON.EDU (Saul Schwartz) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:25:35 -0600 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" Message-ID: Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hocąk? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the *Dodge County* [WI] *Citizen*, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the *History of Dodge County, Wisconsin* (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (*The Missionary Herald*, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 19 23:01:30 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:01:30 -0500 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. Elaine ithge eswena. From: Saul Schwartz Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Hocąk/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hocąk? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the Dodge County [WI] Citizen, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the History of Dodge County, Wisconsin (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (The Missionary Herald, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Sat Sep 21 07:20:20 2013 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:20:20 -0600 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jimm -- I have been following these discussions with great attention, but this one has me completely at a loss -- could you help us out with this? Best Mary On 19/09/2013 5:01 PM, Jimm G. GoodTracks wrote: > Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. > Elaine ithge eswena. > > *From:* Saul Schwartz > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Hocąk/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" > > Hello, > > An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation > of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this > list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th > century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is > "Wiscopawis." Sound Hocąk? Any suggestions for a translation? More > information below. > > All best, > Saul > > The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a > newspaper, the /Dodge County/ [WI] /Citizen/, some time before > 1880. The article was reprinted in the /History of Dodge County, > Wisconsin/ (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: > > "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being > removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, > Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his > tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the > great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." > > Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to > Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a > committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, > Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (/The Missionary Herald/, > v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Sat Sep 21 12:46:35 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 07:46:35 -0500 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: <523D48B4.1000705@usask.ca> Message-ID: I thought I’d let my program take a crack at this name and have it swap out certain characters as I understand how they “shift” (b/p to w, s to th, etc. and vice versa). Note that I also found a bug in my program that I’ll have to fix. I wanted to swap out the “s” for both “th” and “x” as well as keep the “s” (IE s – th, s – x, s – s) but it looks like I have to look at my algorithm because it doesn’t want to handle more than two swaps for a single character. So for now, these results are missing the “s” character. But they may still help. Be warned that there is a lot of gobbledygook to wade through but that is to be expected J. I’ve also never had an output crank out this many results before. Hopefully at least a few of them will give you guys a lead J. Here are the matches I inputted into my program (I can edit, add, or remove matches if someone thinks it will help): w/p w/w s/th s/x s/s p/w o/u o/o c/k c/g Those gave me these results: pithgowapith pithgowapix pithgowawith pithgowawix pithguwapith pithguwapix pithguwawith pithguwawix pithkowapith pithkowapix pithkowawith pithkowawix pithkuwapith pithkuwapix pithkuwawith pithkuwawix pixgowapith pixgowapix pixgowawith pixgowawix pixguwapith pixguwapix pixguwawith pixguwawix pixkowapith pixkowapix pixkowawith pixkowawix pixkuwapith pixkuwapix pixkuwawith pixkuwawix withgowapith withgowapix withgowawith withgowawix withguwapith withguwapix withguwawith withguwawix withkowapith withkowapix withkowawith withkowawix withkuwapith withkuwapix withkuwawith withkuwawix wixgowapith wixgowapix wixgowawith wixgowawix wixguwapith wixguwapix wixguwawith wixguwawix wixkowapith wixkowapix wixkowawith wixkowawix wixkuwapith wixkuwapix wixkuwawith wixkuwawix Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Mary C Marino Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:20 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Hocąk/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Jimm -- I have been following these discussions with great attention, but this one has me completely at a loss -- could you help us out with this? Best Mary On 19/09/2013 5:01 PM, Jimm G. GoodTracks wrote: Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. Elaine ithge eswena. From: Saul Schwartz Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Hocąk/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hocąk? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the Dodge County [WI] Citizen, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the History of Dodge County, Wisconsin (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (The Missionary Herald, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 30 03:18:48 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 03:18:48 +0000 Subject: Fwd: [Histling-l] Job announcement Santa Barbara In-Reply-To: <0B71F0A23F584D30C375462F@[192.168.7.112]> Message-ID: Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Histling-l] Job announcement Santa Barbara From: Marianne Mithun To: histling-l CC: The Linguistics Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a linguist specializing in typologically-informed field linguistics. For primary consideration, submit materials by November 12, 2013. The appointment will be a tenure-track position at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2014. Candidates must have expertise in the analysis of linguistic structure, a theoretical specialization in one or more subfields of linguistics, experience in language documentation and description, and research experience with one or more languages or language families. We are especially interested in candidates with expertise in technical fieldwork methodologies, work with lesser-known languages, and/or an understanding of the roles of diachrony and contact in shaping language. The ideal candidate will have the potential to link the theoretical implications of his or her research to other sub-disciplines in linguistics, and to interact with colleagues and students across disciplinary boundaries at UCSB. The ability to engage with the departmental focus on functional and usage-based approaches to linguistic explanation is essential. Candidates must have demonstrated excellence in teaching and will be expected to teach a range of graduate and undergraduate courses in general linguistics and field linguistics, including a year-long graduate field methods sequence. The Ph.D. in linguistics or a related field is required. The degree is normally required by the time of appointment. The position will remain open until filled. Please submit all materials via the online UC Recruit System at: https://recruit.ap.ucsb.edu/apply/JPF00205 No paper applications please. Inquiries may be addressed to the Search Committee at search-linguistics at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Interviews will be conducted either in person at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting (January 2-5, 2014) or via Skype video conferencing; the two formats will be given equivalent consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity and is especially interested in candidates who can contribute to the diversity and excellence of the academic community through research, teaching and service. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Wed Sep 4 20:13:36 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:13:36 -0500 Subject: Aho! In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369CB82E7626@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: I know you have your mind set on "jump on ~ in" something, but how about some other sentences to see how it plays out. Mark's material below is interesting. Now I wonder how it plays out in Kaw, Osage? Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ w?t^anwe" [wa + a + t^?nwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ w?t^amwe [wa + u + t^?nwe]. What says the Dhegiha folks? Does all the rest of the Dhegiha languages follow suit with the Omaha? Can Iren and Johannes state if the Hochank follow with the Jiwere? Or with the Dhegiha? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:23 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Yep, the term ?wonayin? helps! For the life of me I couldn?t think of a definite locative that worked with ?wa-?. Well, that ?wa-? has the idea of ?something? and the one I?m talking about refers to ?them.? However as you mentioned, ?wa-? is so complicated we don?t know if that is the same ?wa-? or not LOL. I?ve been getting the ?jump? information from Mark Awakuni-Swetland. He and I have been emailing back and forth for the past week or so. He?s graciously shared some of his digitized material with me. Here?s a pic of his entry: As far as those books, I got the proofs last week. I still need to double-check them although I suspect there won?t be any issues if they just cut/pasted the information I sent them J. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:29 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD; Jill Greer; Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Subject: Re: Aho! See if the entries below [on; in~within] helps: ** in them; on them prn/prep.prf. w?-... in us; on us prn/prep.prf. w?wa-...(wi). [NOTE: wa- + u- = w?-]. The shirt is too tight on them, W?nayin w?radage ke. The shirt is too tight on us two, W?nayin w?waradage ke. The shirt is too tight on all of us, W?nayin w?waradagewi ke. God put the truth in them, Wak?nda m?nke w?gre ke. God put the truth in us two, Wak?nda m?nke w?wagre ke. God put the truth in all of us, Wak?nda m?nke w?wagrewi ke. There?s a bug on me, Wagr? ?ngwe ke. There?s several bugs on me, Wagr? ?ngwe?e ke. There?s a bug on you and me, Wagr? w?wagwe ke. There?s several bugs on you and me, Wagr? w?wagwa?e ke. There?s a bug on you, Wagr? ur?gwe ke. There?s several bugs on you, Wagr? ur?gwa?e ke. There?s a bug on her, Wagr? ugw? ke. There?s several bugs on her, Wagr? ugwa?e ke. There?s a bugs on all of us, Wagr? w?wagwawi ke. There?s several bugs on us all, Wagr? w?wagwanawi ke. There?s a bug on all of you, Wagr? ur?gwawi ke. There?s several bugs on all of you, Wagr? ur?gwanawi ke. There?s a bug on them, Wagr? w?gwe ke. There?s several bugs on them all, Wagr? w?gwa?e ke. on; over; upon inseparable prep prf/suf. a-...; ...-da: I jumped on it, ??t^anwe ke [a- + h?- + t^anwe]. He left me on it,. Am?nbe ke. It goes from that point on,. Ga?da war? (ke). The house is on the hill, Ch? ah?da ar? ke. There ice on the ground, Mah?da ??xe ke. The fleas are pecking on the dogs, Wagr?i?e ?unk^??i w?gwa?e ke. ** on; on there v.t/prep. d?re. [NOTE: ?da ~ da (there) + ar? (it is)]: M?ne d?re ke, It was on me. M?ne d?re?e ke, They were on me. R?re d?re ke, It was on you. R?re d?re?e ke, They were on you. Ar? d?re ke, It was on him. Ar? d?re?e ke, They were on him ~ them. H?n? d?re ke, It was on you & me. H?n? d?re?e ke, They were on you & me. M?ne d?re ke, It was on me. M?ne d?re?e ke, They were on me. ** be on, on; sticks to adj/v.i. ar?ha. **SEE: adhere; stick;ar?ha. There?s a bug on me, Wagr? ?nraha ke. There?s one bug on us two, Wagr? iy?nki w?waraha ke. There?s a bug on you, Wagr? ar?raha ke. There?s a bug on her, Wagr? ar?ha ke. There?s a bug on all of us, Wagr? w?warahawi ke. There?s a bug on you all, Wagr? ar?rahawi ke. There?s a bug on them 2, Wagr? ar?hawi ke. There?s a bug on all of them, Wagr? ar?ha?e ke. ** be several in, within adj/v.i. ugw?. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s a bug in me, Wagr? ?ngwe ke. There?s several bugs in me, Wagr? ?ngwe?e ke. There?s a bug in you and me, Wagr? w?wagwe ke. There?s several bugs in you and me, Wagr? w?wagwa?e ke. There?s a bug in you, Wagr? ur?gwe ke. There?s several bugs in you, Wagr? ur?gwa?e ke. There?s a bug in her, Wagr? ugw? ke. There?s several bugs in her, Wagr? ugwa?e ke. There?s a bugs in all of us, Wagr? w?wagwawi ke. There?s several bugs in us all, Wagr? w?wagwanawi ke. There?s a bug in all of you, Wagr? ur?gwawi ke. There?s several bugs in all of you, Wagr? ur?gwanawi ke. There?s a bug in them, Wagr? w?gwe ke. There?s several bugs in them all, Wagr? w?gwa?e ke. ** settle on (surface); be several on ~ around; be some ~ a number of; be numerous, many; pile up; be dense on prep/v.t. ?do. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s several bugs on me, Wagr? ?ndo(?e) ke. There?s several bugs on us two, Wagr? w?wedo ke. There?s several bugs on you, Wagr? ar?do ke. There?s several bugs on her, Wagr? edo ke. There?s several bugs on us all, Wagr? w?wedowi ke. There?s several bugs all of you, Wagr? ar?dowi ke. There's several bugs on them 2, Wagr? w?dowi ke. There's several bugs all of them, Wagr? w?do?e ke. ** be exemely numerous on, around; be thick on; lots of on adj/v.i. ar??^?ge. **SEE: adhere; stick; thick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s lots of bugs on me, Wagr? ?nra?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on us two, Wagr? w?wara?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on you, Wagr? ar?ra?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on her, Wagr? rar??^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on us all, Wagr? w?wara?^?genawi ke. The bugs are thick on you all, Wagr? ar?ra?^?genawi ke. There?s lots of bugs on them 2, Wagr? w?ra?^?gewi ke. There?s lots of bugs on them all, Wagr? w?ra?^?ge?e ke. You say that you have Ponca/ Omaha examples saying "he jumps on them" following a pattern of: a + wa + t^?nwe. Can you give that example, and if need be, we can run I by the list, which has been quiet lately. Somewhere, I have more explaination, but it does not revel itself where it is to be located. Meanwhile, Jill Greer says: it seems more efficient to suggest that (glottal) \? \ works to identify boundaries between morphemes, and other processes related to preserving word meaning rather than at the level of the basic inventory and system of sounds (phonology). (-6) Locatives: a- ?on, upon, over?, u- ?in, within, into?, i- ?at, to, by? (Whitman 1946:241) These combine with the prefix wa2a- (indefinitely extended object) to make a ?heavy? syllable; it has a longer vowel, and usually attracts stress also. Examples of this process were discussed earlier in the section on nominal prefixes. wa: < wa1- + a- ?on? wo: < wa1- + u- ?in? wi: < wa1- + i- ?at, to, by? Hi?yi?no| wo-waxo?ita? rithawe urakhi?e da | ?Brother| when they tell about this beautiful ceremony| wa?u? waruphi | Rire a?e na the wonderful work it does| they say it?s You.? I?m not sure I understand your rendering of ?suje? if it were combined with ?ut^axe?. I see where you are going with the ?such^ot^axe? but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like ?suntan? can be shortened to ?sun? for Itan?s name without the glottal stop between the contracted ?sun? and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn?t a glottal stop but it just flows into the ?ma?i? portion of the name), why can?t ?suje? be shortened to ?su-? and then just flow into ?ut^axe?? I don't have an immediate answer for you, as I said, I'm lacking some reference at the moment. However, a difference that I see in the shortened "sh?nta (wolf) > sh?n" in the name Sh?nma?ikathi (Prairie Wolf), and "m?ha ~ m?yan (land, dirt; earth) > ma-" in terms like "m?k^e (cultivate; farm)" is those words begin with a noun, whereas, you are basing your case on a combination of an adjective + verb. There may be and like are such combinations, but the one you propose for the analysis of pink is highly unlikely. PS: What ever became of you book with the llamas and tractors plus the traditional stories we did early in the year? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:35 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! I?ve seen the overwhelming number of examples where wa- is combined with the first vowel. What I was curious about was if this convention changes specifically with the locative u-/a- prefixes. Then again, really haven?t seen any ?on them? or ?in them? verbs. The reason I?m asking is because it appears that Omaha/Ponca follows the convention of the ?them? (wa-) coming after the ?on? portion rather than before and I was curious if the same applied here. The Omaha/Ponca example I am referring to says ?jump on them.? I?m not sure I understand your rendering of ?suje? if it were combined with ?ut^axe?. I see where you are going with the ?such^ot^axe? but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like ?suntan? can be shortened to ?sun? for Itan?s name without the glottal stop between the contracted ?sun? and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn?t a glottal stop but it just flows into the ?ma?i? portion of the name), why can?t ?suje? be shortened to ?su-? and then just flow into ?ut^axe?? I?m not trying to force my theory into the term ?sut^axi? but at the same time I don?t understand how there is only one possible contraction type for this. Languages always have exceptions to guidelines (I prefer to use ?guideline? rather than ?rule? because of those exceptions hehehe). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 PM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! I believe that wath?we would be the better term, and more along the means that a wild fire is combated. Meanwhile, I commend you for your analytical innovative thinking. Impressive it is! However, typically when the sound "j" is combined with another word, thus loosing its final verb, the "j" (which has no glottal), changes to the sound "ch^" glottal. Please note how this works with the word "shoe" as it is combined to form the word for "moccasin": ag?je + uk??i > ag?ch^oke?i If "s?je" were to combine with "?utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe?" the rendered result would be = such^ot^axe. Your logic is without question, it just that the rules of IOM phonics will not stand the test. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:38 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ahh, ok. So if ?githewe? uses ?gi? as the instrumental part which is ?by means of stricking, cutting with axe, by action of wind?, would ?wathewe? be a better term since those are pretty specific? Also, I think I have a theory behind the term ?sut^axi? (pink)! I found that Dorsey had a term ?otaxe/utaxe? which he translated as ?to soak through, or to be seen through, on the other side, as writing or grease on thin paper? as well as ?to soak through as water through a blanket, or rain through clothing.? He has a glottal stop in there but it looks like it is before the ?t? (IE ?o^taxe/u^taxe). But still, bear with me J. So what about ?sut^axi? being a combination of ?suje? and ?utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe?? Then it would translate as ?red being seen through? which would definitely fit the idea of pink since it is a lighter version of red. And no doubt the color would be diluted if it was ?seen through? something. What do you think? I remember you saying that term was a mystery J. There was something else I was going to ask you but I forget what it was J. Hope your weekend went well! Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:54 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Remember that "wa-" has many applications. In the "wa-" to which you refer, you are correct, and it would make the term a noun. The "wa-" in use here is the instrumental prefix added to a verb, just as the same is true with "gi". The full entry is: extinguish (with s.t., as a fire or by action of the wind) v.t. gith?we: (I?, h?thewe; you?, r?thewe; we?, hing?thewewi; they?, gith?we?e). Last night we had quite a storm, and the lights were all out (caused by the strong wind), Dan??ida h?nheda t?je p? ?k??i n?he ke; d?kan br?ge gith?we ke. You can use that shovel to put out the fire, Mak^? s?^e ^?nna p?je r?thewe?d?n ke. Then they will extinguish the fire, H?dan p?je githewe?e h?e ke. extinguish (by blowing on); blow out v.t. both?we: (I?, hab?thewe; you?, rab?thewe; we?, hinb?thewewi; they?, both?we?e). Will you blow out the lamp (lantern), Wir?dakanhin rab?thewe je. extinguish (firebrand) by pushing it into ground, water; punch and make black v.t. wath?we: (I?, hap?thewe; you?, sw?thewe; we?, hinw?thewewi; they?, wath?we?e). From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:24 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Re: Aho! Is wathewe "something black" in that a fire that has been put out leaves charred remains? Would the "githewe" version refer to someone else's fire being put out (IE put out a fire for someone)? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Jimm G. GoodTracks" wrote: Either that or Wath?we Wan^sh?ge. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! And one more quick question LOL. Some Otoe-Missouria firefighters recently went out to fight one of the wildfires recently. One of our directors here has asked me to translate something like ?fireman? or ?firefighter? for them. He wants to have some shirts made for them I think. I didn?t want to accidentally use a NAC term for ?fire man? as I understand that is a role during meetings. So what I came up with was: Githewe Wan^shige (extinquish fire person) What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:56 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! It is my impression that the professional linguists consider that the future marker "h?e" is actually a suffix attached to the verb, such as it is in Spanish: Viajo (I travel) > Viajar? (I will travel). Thus, thinking along these same kind of lines, Yes, you could write your verbal statement as you have it - Hinma?ita hnye ke - OR even write the whole thing as a single unit -Hinma?itahnye ke. For me, the longer the word, the more likely it'll be misconstrued. Maybe it is our English mindset, whatever! The likelihood of error seems to increase. Thus, I tend to separate what the professionals call suffixes, keeping them as independent units, or sometimes, and only sometimes, adding a hyphen, for the prevention of confussion. An example of the latter, would be such as: Ah?thewe-da gre h?e ke (He is going to return to the Black Hills." At any rate, I believe we are on the same page. As one becomes more familiar with the language, such preferences and liberties should present little difficultiy for the astute. Ar?hga je. I have seen "ho/ha; taho/taha ~ hahdo/a" sometimes rendered as "please." For me, sometimes that is a fit, other times, not so much. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:46 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ok. It also sounds like the same thing is going on for ?taho/taha? as far as polite commands and/or ?let?s.? I?ve had a few people express confusion over this as far as when/how it is used. My tentative investigation in this has led me to think that maybe it would be easier for learners to understand this if it were represented differently on paper (but pronounced the same obviously). For example: Hinmanyi tahnye ke Would become: Hinmanyita hnye ke. And: Hinmanyi taho. Would become: Hinmanyita ho. I?ve spoken with several people and they say the latter examples help them understand what is going on much easier. But before I make a change like this, I?m wanting to explore it a bit more. But if it is simply a case of ?-wi? becoming ?-ta?, then switching to the latter would be easy. What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:18 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Yes, Rim?ngke ke (You're correct). Let me further comment below.... From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:34 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Aho! I?ve got a quick question for the plural ?will? since we are on the subject. We may have covered this before but I?m wanting to be sure LOL. I know that the 1st and 2nd future plural replaces ?wi with ?ta/da?. Hinmanyi tahnye ke (1st person plural) (CORRECT) Ramanyi tahnye ke (2nd person plural) (CORRECT) I am unsure about these: Hinmanyi hnye ke (1st person dual) (UNSURE BUT I THINK IT IS RIGHT!!) Manyi tahnye (3rd person dual) (UNSURE!!) THIRD PERSON DUAL: I already have a note to myself to look for examples from texts, and notes from whatever source. I too wonder about that one. Logically, it should follow suit with FIRST PERS DUAL, since the "-wi" acts in a different capacity. It is like the various uses for the multi-tasking "wa-." If you find examples before me. Let me know. Also, do you know what the ?ta? is doing on there? You have in your dictionary ?This suffix ?-ta? ~ hahda? replaces ?-wi? (plural suffix) before another suffix.? Does that mean the ?-ta? is a contracted form of ?hahda?? If so, what is that? You have it as ?anew, renew, return? but I?m doubtful that is the idea here. It was in looking at my dictionary entry that I became dissatisfied with the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no satisfactory example or explanation for THIRD PERSON DUAL. You can be sure that the entry will be revised when I have new information at hand. Meanwhile, avoid using TPD in the future tense or change it to regular TPP. I had a friend to reboot the Skype, so now there is an ICON on the LAP desktop, but it is only the LAP. Not on the desktop of the Desktop. Perhaps, next week, I'll try to give you a buzz on it, or whatever it does to let the other party know they are called. Have you tried to connect with the CAAP files on Satellite via PeggyBank? What is your impression if so? I've heard no more from Saul - whatever that means - as to PB slowing some of the recordings to a more typical speed. I hope all is well up your way J. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17540 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 5 00:36:30 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 00:36:30 +0000 Subject: Aho! In-Reply-To: <8C994D1601B643F9BFCBCDB67899AF79@JGDellLaptop> Message-ID: Guys, I'll try to get around to gathering all this discussion together and digesting it tomorrow or the next day. There's quite a bit to digest. Jill did a paper at the Siouan conference in Lawrence about 15 months ago that covered a lot of this territory. I don't remember the details of it, but maybe she'll jump in. I do remember that Ho Chank has what has been called a single pronoun, written nin, that means both/either 'I' and/or 'you'. I believe that the 1st and 2nd person pronouns here are actually homonyms and that they had two distinct etymological sources. I'll try to figure out the dual/plural pronominal prefixes soon. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jimm G. GoodTracks [jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:13 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Aho! I know you have your mind set on "jump on ~ in" something, but how about some other sentences to see how it plays out. Mark's material below is interesting. Now I wonder how it plays out in Kaw, Osage? Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ w?t^anwe" [wa + a + t^?nwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ w?t^amwe [wa + u + t^?nwe]. What says the Dhegiha folks? Does all the rest of the Dhegiha languages follow suit with the Omaha? Can Iren and Johannes state if the Hochank follow with the Jiwere? Or with the Dhegiha? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:23 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Yep, the term ?wonayin? helps! For the life of me I couldn?t think of a definite locative that worked with ?wa-?. Well, that ?wa-? has the idea of ?something? and the one I?m talking about refers to ?them.? However as you mentioned, ?wa-? is so complicated we don?t know if that is the same ?wa-? or not LOL. I?ve been getting the ?jump? information from Mark Awakuni-Swetland. He and I have been emailing back and forth for the past week or so. He?s graciously shared some of his digitized material with me. Here?s a pic of his entry: [to leap on them.jpg] As far as those books, I got the proofs last week. I still need to double-check them although I suspect there won?t be any issues if they just cut/pasted the information I sent them ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:29 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD; Jill Greer; Mark J Awakuni-Swetland Subject: Re: Aho! See if the entries below [on; in~within] helps: ** in them; on them prn/prep.prf. w?-... in us; on us prn/prep.prf. w?wa-...(wi). [NOTE: wa- + u- = w?-]. The shirt is too tight on them, W?nayin w?radage ke. The shirt is too tight on us two, W?nayin w?waradage ke. The shirt is too tight on all of us, W?nayin w?waradagewi ke. God put the truth in them, Wak?nda m?nke w?gre ke. God put the truth in us two, Wak?nda m?nke w?wagre ke. God put the truth in all of us, Wak?nda m?nke w?wagrewi ke. There?s a bug on me, Wagr? ?ngwe ke. There?s several bugs on me, Wagr? ?ngwe?e ke. There?s a bug on you and me, Wagr? w?wagwe ke. There?s several bugs on you and me, Wagr? w?wagwa?e ke. There?s a bug on you, Wagr? ur?gwe ke. There?s several bugs on you, Wagr? ur?gwa?e ke. There?s a bug on her, Wagr? ugw? ke. There?s several bugs on her, Wagr? ugwa?e ke. There?s a bugs on all of us, Wagr? w?wagwawi ke. There?s several bugs on us all, Wagr? w?wagwanawi ke. There?s a bug on all of you, Wagr? ur?gwawi ke. There?s several bugs on all of you, Wagr? ur?gwanawi ke. There?s a bug on them, Wagr? w?gwe ke. There?s several bugs on them all, Wagr? w?gwa?e ke. on; over; upon inseparable prep prf/suf. a-...; ...-da: I jumped on it, ??t^anwe ke [a- + h?- + t^anwe]. He left me on it,. Am?nbe ke. It goes from that point on,. Ga?da war? (ke). The house is on the hill, Ch? ah?da ar? ke. There ice on the ground, Mah?da ??xe ke. The fleas are pecking on the dogs, Wagr?i?e ?unk^??i w?gwa?e ke. ** on; on there v.t/prep. d?re. [NOTE: ?da ~ da (there) + ar? (it is)]: M?ne d?re ke, It was on me. M?ne d?re?e ke, They were on me. R?re d?re ke, It was on you. R?re d?re?e ke, They were on you. Ar? d?re ke, It was on him. Ar? d?re?e ke, They were on him ~ them. H?n? d?re ke, It was on you & me. H?n? d?re?e ke, They were on you & me. M?ne d?re ke, It was on me. M?ne d?re?e ke, They were on me. ** be on, on; sticks to adj/v.i. ar?ha. **SEE: adhere; stick;ar?ha. There?s a bug on me, Wagr? ?nraha ke. There?s one bug on us two, Wagr? iy?nki w?waraha ke. There?s a bug on you, Wagr? ar?raha ke. There?s a bug on her, Wagr? ar?ha ke. There?s a bug on all of us, Wagr? w?warahawi ke. There?s a bug on you all, Wagr? ar?rahawi ke. There?s a bug on them 2, Wagr? ar?hawi ke. There?s a bug on all of them, Wagr? ar?ha?e ke. ** be several in, within adj/v.i. ugw?. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s a bug in me, Wagr? ?ngwe ke. There?s several bugs in me, Wagr? ?ngwe?e ke. There?s a bug in you and me, Wagr? w?wagwe ke. There?s several bugs in you and me, Wagr? w?wagwa?e ke. There?s a bug in you, Wagr? ur?gwe ke. There?s several bugs in you, Wagr? ur?gwa?e ke. There?s a bug in her, Wagr? ugw? ke. There?s several bugs in her, Wagr? ugwa?e ke. There?s a bugs in all of us, Wagr? w?wagwawi ke. There?s several bugs in us all, Wagr? w?wagwanawi ke. There?s a bug in all of you, Wagr? ur?gwawi ke. There?s several bugs in all of you, Wagr? ur?gwanawi ke. There?s a bug in them, Wagr? w?gwe ke. There?s several bugs in them all, Wagr? w?gwa?e ke. ** settle on (surface); be several on ~ around; be some ~ a number of; be numerous, many; pile up; be dense on prep/v.t. ?do. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s several bugs on me, Wagr? ?ndo(?e) ke. There?s several bugs on us two, Wagr? w?wedo ke. There?s several bugs on you, Wagr? ar?do ke. There?s several bugs on her, Wagr? edo ke. There?s several bugs on us all, Wagr? w?wedowi ke. There?s several bugs all of you, Wagr? ar?dowi ke. There's several bugs on them 2, Wagr? w?dowi ke. There's several bugs all of them, Wagr? w?do?e ke. ** be exemely numerous on, around; be thick on; lots of on adj/v.i. ar??^?ge. **SEE: adhere; stick; thick; ugw?; egw?; d?re. There?s lots of bugs on me, Wagr? ?nra?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on us two, Wagr? w?wara?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on you, Wagr? ar?ra?^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on her, Wagr? rar??^?ge?e ke. The bugs are thick on us all, Wagr? w?wara?^?genawi ke. The bugs are thick on you all, Wagr? ar?ra?^?genawi ke. There?s lots of bugs on them 2, Wagr? w?ra?^?gewi ke. There?s lots of bugs on them all, Wagr? w?ra?^?ge?e ke. You say that you have Ponca/ Omaha examples saying "he jumps on them" following a pattern of: a + wa + t^?nwe. Can you give that example, and if need be, we can run I by the list, which has been quiet lately. Somewhere, I have more explaination, but it does not revel itself where it is to be located. Meanwhile, Jill Greer says: it seems more efficient to suggest that (glottal) \? \ works to identify boundaries between morphemes, and other processes related to preserving word meaning rather than at the level of the basic inventory and system of sounds (phonology). (-6) Locatives: a- ?on, upon, over?, u- ?in, within, into?, i- ?at, to, by? (Whitman 1946:241) These combine with the prefix wa2a- (indefinitely extended object) to make a ?heavy? syllable; it has a longer vowel, and usually attracts stress also. Examples of this process were discussed earlier in the section on nominal prefixes. wa: < wa1- + a- ?on? wo: < wa1- + u- ?in? wi: < wa1- + i- ?at, to, by? Hi?yi?no| wo-waxo?ita? rithawe urakhi?e da | ?Brother| when they tell about this beautiful ceremony| wa?u? waruphi | Rire a?e na the wonderful work it does| they say it?s You.? I?m not sure I understand your rendering of ?suje? if it were combined with ?ut^axe?. I see where you are going with the ?such^ot^axe? but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like ?suntan? can be shortened to ?sun? for Itan?s name without the glottal stop between the contracted ?sun? and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn?t a glottal stop but it just flows into the ?ma?i? portion of the name), why can?t ?suje? be shortened to ?su-? and then just flow into ?ut^axe?? I don't have an immediate answer for you, as I said, I'm lacking some reference at the moment. However, a difference that I see in the shortened "sh?nta (wolf) > sh?n" in the name Sh?nma?ikathi (Prairie Wolf), and "m?ha ~ m?yan (land, dirt; earth) > ma-" in terms like "m?k^e (cultivate; farm)" is those words begin with a noun, whereas, you are basing your case on a combination of an adjective + verb. There may be and like are such combinations, but the one you propose for the analysis of pink is highly unlikely. PS: What ever became of you book with the llamas and tractors plus the traditional stories we did early in the year? From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:35 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! I?ve seen the overwhelming number of examples where wa- is combined with the first vowel. What I was curious about was if this convention changes specifically with the locative u-/a- prefixes. Then again, really haven?t seen any ?on them? or ?in them? verbs. The reason I?m asking is because it appears that Omaha/Ponca follows the convention of the ?them? (wa-) coming after the ?on? portion rather than before and I was curious if the same applied here. The Omaha/Ponca example I am referring to says ?jump on them.? I?m not sure I understand your rendering of ?suje? if it were combined with ?ut^axe?. I see where you are going with the ?such^ot^axe? but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like ?suntan? can be shortened to ?sun? for Itan?s name without the glottal stop between the contracted ?sun? and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn?t a glottal stop but it just flows into the ?ma?i? portion of the name), why can?t ?suje? be shortened to ?su-? and then just flow into ?ut^axe?? I?m not trying to force my theory into the term ?sut^axi? but at the same time I don?t understand how there is only one possible contraction type for this. Languages always have exceptions to guidelines (I prefer to use ?guideline? rather than ?rule? because of those exceptions hehehe). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 PM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! I believe that wath?we would be the better term, and more along the means that a wild fire is combated. Meanwhile, I commend you for your analytical innovative thinking. Impressive it is! However, typically when the sound "j" is combined with another word, thus loosing its final verb, the "j" (which has no glottal), changes to the sound "ch^" glottal. Please note how this works with the word "shoe" as it is combined to form the word for "moccasin": ag?je + uk??i > ag?ch^oke?i If "s?je" were to combine with "?utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe?" the rendered result would be = such^ot^axe. Your logic is without question, it just that the rules of IOM phonics will not stand the test. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:38 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ahh, ok. So if ?githewe? uses ?gi? as the instrumental part which is ?by means of stricking, cutting with axe, by action of wind?, would ?wathewe? be a better term since those are pretty specific? Also, I think I have a theory behind the term ?sut^axi? (pink)! I found that Dorsey had a term ?otaxe/utaxe? which he translated as ?to soak through, or to be seen through, on the other side, as writing or grease on thin paper? as well as ?to soak through as water through a blanket, or rain through clothing.? He has a glottal stop in there but it looks like it is before the ?t? (IE ?o^taxe/u^taxe). But still, bear with me ?. So what about ?sut^axi? being a combination of ?suje? and ?utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe?? Then it would translate as ?red being seen through? which would definitely fit the idea of pink since it is a lighter version of red. And no doubt the color would be diluted if it was ?seen through? something. What do you think? I remember you saying that term was a mystery ?. There was something else I was going to ask you but I forget what it was ?. Hope your weekend went well! Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:54 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Remember that "wa-" has many applications. In the "wa-" to which you refer, you are correct, and it would make the term a noun. The "wa-" in use here is the instrumental prefix added to a verb, just as the same is true with "gi". The full entry is: extinguish (with s.t., as a fire or by action of the wind) v.t. gith?we: (I?, h?thewe; you?, r?thewe; we?, hing?thewewi; they?, gith?we?e). Last night we had quite a storm, and the lights were all out (caused by the strong wind), Dan??ida h?nheda t?je p? ?k??i n?he ke; d?kan br?ge gith?we ke. You can use that shovel to put out the fire, Mak^? s?^e ^?nna p?je r?thewe?d?n ke. Then they will extinguish the fire, H?dan p?je githewe?e h?e ke. extinguish (by blowing on); blow out v.t. both?we: (I?, hab?thewe; you?, rab?thewe; we?, hinb?thewewi; they?, both?we?e). Will you blow out the lamp (lantern), Wir?dakanhin rab?thewe je. extinguish (firebrand) by pushing it into ground, water; punch and make black v.t. wath?we: (I?, hap?thewe; you?, sw?thewe; we?, hinw?thewewi; they?, wath?we?e). From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:24 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Re: Aho! Is wathewe "something black" in that a fire that has been put out leaves charred remains? Would the "githewe" version refer to someone else's fire being put out (IE put out a fire for someone)? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Jimm G. GoodTracks" > wrote: Either that or Wath?we Wan^sh?ge. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11 PM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! And one more quick question LOL. Some Otoe-Missouria firefighters recently went out to fight one of the wildfires recently. One of our directors here has asked me to translate something like ?fireman? or ?firefighter? for them. He wants to have some shirts made for them I think. I didn?t want to accidentally use a NAC term for ?fire man? as I understand that is a role during meetings. So what I came up with was: Githewe Wan^shige (extinquish fire person) What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:56 AM To: Campbell, Sky Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD Subject: Re: Aho! It is my impression that the professional linguists consider that the future marker "h?e" is actually a suffix attached to the verb, such as it is in Spanish: Viajo (I travel) > Viajar? (I will travel). Thus, thinking along these same kind of lines, Yes, you could write your verbal statement as you have it - Hinma?ita hnye ke - OR even write the whole thing as a single unit -Hinma?itahnye ke. For me, the longer the word, the more likely it'll be misconstrued. Maybe it is our English mindset, whatever! The likelihood of error seems to increase. Thus, I tend to separate what the professionals call suffixes, keeping them as independent units, or sometimes, and only sometimes, adding a hyphen, for the prevention of confussion. An example of the latter, would be such as: Ah?thewe-da gre h?e ke (He is going to return to the Black Hills." At any rate, I believe we are on the same page. As one becomes more familiar with the language, such preferences and liberties should present little difficultiy for the astute. Ar?hga je. I have seen "ho/ha; taho/taha ~ hahdo/a" sometimes rendered as "please." For me, sometimes that is a fit, other times, not so much. From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:46 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: RE: Aho! Ok. It also sounds like the same thing is going on for ?taho/taha? as far as polite commands and/or ?let?s.? I?ve had a few people express confusion over this as far as when/how it is used. My tentative investigation in this has led me to think that maybe it would be easier for learners to understand this if it were represented differently on paper (but pronounced the same obviously). For example: Hinmanyi tahnye ke Would become: Hinmanyita hnye ke. And: Hinmanyi taho. Would become: Hinmanyita ho. I?ve spoken with several people and they say the latter examples help them understand what is going on much easier. But before I make a change like this, I?m wanting to explore it a bit more. But if it is simply a case of ?-wi? becoming ?-ta?, then switching to the latter would be easy. What do you think? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:18 AM To: Campbell, Sky Subject: Re: Aho! Yes, Rim?ngke ke (You're correct). Let me further comment below.... From: Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:34 AM To: Jimm G. GoodTracks Subject: Aho! I?ve got a quick question for the plural ?will? since we are on the subject. We may have covered this before but I?m wanting to be sure LOL. I know that the 1st and 2nd future plural replaces ?wi with ?ta/da?. Hinmanyi tahnye ke (1st person plural) (CORRECT) Ramanyi tahnye ke (2nd person plural) (CORRECT) I am unsure about these: Hinmanyi hnye ke (1st person dual) (UNSURE BUT I THINK IT IS RIGHT!!) Manyi tahnye (3rd person dual) (UNSURE!!) THIRD PERSON DUAL: I already have a note to myself to look for examples from texts, and notes from whatever source. I too wonder about that one. Logically, it should follow suit with FIRST PERS DUAL, since the "-wi" acts in a different capacity. It is like the various uses for the multi-tasking "wa-." If you find examples before me. Let me know. Also, do you know what the ?ta? is doing on there? You have in your dictionary ?This suffix ?-ta? ~ hahda? replaces ?-wi? (plural suffix) before another suffix.? Does that mean the ?-ta? is a contracted form of ?hahda?? If so, what is that? You have it as ?anew, renew, return? but I?m doubtful that is the idea here. It was in looking at my dictionary entry that I became dissatisfied with the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no satisfactory example or explanation for THIRD PERSON DUAL. You can be sure that the entry will be revised when I have new information at hand. Meanwhile, avoid using TPD in the future tense or change it to regular TPP. I had a friend to reboot the Skype, so now there is an ICON on the LAP desktop, but it is only the LAP. Not on the desktop of the Desktop. Perhaps, next week, I'll try to give you a buzz on it, or whatever it does to let the other party know they are called. Have you tried to connect with the CAAP files on Satellite via PeggyBank? What is your impression if so? I've heard no more from Saul - whatever that means - as to PB slowing some of the recordings to a more typical speed. I hope all is well up your way ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17540 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 5 11:17:03 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 06:17:03 -0500 Subject: Fw: Press Release: Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston Workday Sept 14 Message-ID: From: Stephen & Lori McAlister Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:26 AM To: 'Lori McAlister' Subject: Press Release: Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston Workday Sept 14 PRESS RELEASE: IMMEDIATE 5 September 2013; Lori McAlister, Media Contact for The Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston, 402-802-2099 or mcalisters at windstream.net WORKDAY AT HISTORIC BUILDING IN BARNESTON A workday is scheduled to winterize the historic transitional building associated with the Otoe-Missouria Indian Reservation in Barneston on Saturday, September 14 from 9:00 am to 12 noon. All interested persons are welcome to participate. Between 1855 and 1881, the Big Blue Reservation in south Gage County was home to about 600 Otoe-Missouria. The central hub of the reservation was a trading post operated by Frances M. and Mary J. Barnes. After the tribal community removed to Red Rock, Oklahoma, the village of Barneston grew up around this enterprise. While the area was yet a reservation, sketches illustrate a mix of dwellings including of earth lodges, wikiups and wood frame buildings. One of the most notable structures was the 3-story Indian Mission School built in 1874-1875. It served as many as 30 pupils from as far away as six miles. The iconic, black and white photograph of the school remains the signature historic image associated with Barneston today. Precisely what happened to this building remains somewhat of a mystery. There is another old image showing the building being dismantled, but there is some question as to whether it was taken down completely or whether a portion of it was actually converted into a private home. Local stories credit the now two-story building as all that remains of the Indian Mission School. It most certainly is a significant structure in the history of the area and as a transitional building associated with the mission school, it is one of the few physical links we have to the story of the Big Blue Reservation. The building was saved from destruction by a group of local citizens in 1986 and moved from its original site to the corner it now occupies one block east of the Barneston Park. In 1999, the ownership of the building was assumed by the Gage County Heritage Preservation Group. Now, a newly formed independent non-profit organization, The Otoe-Missouria Home Place at Barneston, will take on stewardship of the building and the story it represents. Matthew Jones, Lori McAlister, Kathy Paul and Laureen Riedesel make up the founding board. "This is a time for gathering partners and making plans with people from Barneston, from among the Otoe-Missouria and agencies like The Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs and the Nebraska State Historical Society," said McAlister. "This slice of history belongs to native and white people alike." The workday is designed to provide an opportunity for assessing the site as well as simple cleaning, securing loose siding and covering holes. A large scale repair of the structure is in the plans along with program development and fund-raising. Following the workday, participants are invited to continue the conversation over lunch at the Subway in Wymore. If you are interested in being part of this effort or would like to find out more, please contact board member, Lori McAlister at 402-802-2099 or mcalisters at windstream.net. Lori & Stephen McAlister 1811 Sumner Street Lincoln, NE 68502 Hm 402.742.0477 Lori cell 402.802.2099 Stephen cell 402.802.2133 mcalisters at windstream.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19919 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Poster Workday 2013_300.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3238334 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK Sat Sep 7 10:25:47 2013 From: shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK (shokooh Ingham) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:25:47 +0100 Subject: testing In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC6235EDC87@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ________________________________ testing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 7 20:43:13 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 20:43:13 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. Message-ID: > First, in my experience with Omaha, I believe that for verbs that begin with u- followed by another syllable, the u- is pretty much always the locative prefix. Some of these verbs are very old and have become ?generalized? so that it may be hard to see the ?in? sense of the u-. But it should originally be there. This is true of all four ?locative? prefixes in all the Siouan languages. The fact that the set is found in every Siouan language means that these prefixes are over 3000 years old. It is not surprising that they have lost their original meaning in many cases. This is discussed for Dakotan in Boas and Deloria. > The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing ?whatchacome? wa-. I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-?s. I?ve always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though. It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like ?us? and ?(animate) them? would be a very natural development for a ?whatchacome? wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object. I think the ?us? morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be. It often seems to be associated with another ?a- that leaves it long. Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question. I?ve also heard that Hochunk has preserved a more complicated conjugation pattern that is probably more like that of the original language, and perhaps Otoe-Missouria did likewise? It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, Personally, I?d be surprised to find such a pattern preserved on only one language with no trace left in any of the others unless that language formed a unique subgroup within the language family (like Mandan does, for example). There are some peculiarities of Chiwere and Hochunk that are shared and therefore likely retentions. Among these is the special 3rd plural suffix. Mandan has -kere ?3pl, Hochunk has ?ire ?3pl?, Chiwere has -(a)?e ?3pl?, and Tutelo has -hele? ?3pl?. And although there is disagreement about parts of this enclitic, the set strongly suggests that there was some sort of 3pl subject marker. > But while I mentioned that my gut tells me there is no real difference [in the meanings of wa- and wa- -- RLR], I still wonder if there is a difference and if there is a definite THEM if it would follow your pattern of coming after the locative vowel prefix. That would be surprising. >manyi ? he/she/it walks manyiwi ? they-dual walk manyinye ? they-plural walk Older sources don?t list this form. Lack in older sources could stem from several problems. Older grammarians lacked linguistic training and therefore expected Native languages to have the same categories as European languages. Exceptions to this were sometimes simply excised as ?illogical.? > Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the ?I? form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard ?we? form. (I?m going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.) That would be surprising too. The form without ?(a)wi should already be ?inclusive? as it is in the other languages. I don?t know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb. I could be corrected on this though. > Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi. The elements are the same; it?s only the meanings that are different. I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from ?api. I don?t see a difference in meaning really. It means ?pluralizer? throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Maybe you?re talking about the 3sg use of ?abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called ?proximate vs. obviative?. I guess I?d consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer. But, again, I could be corrected on this. >Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ w?t^anwe" [wa + a + t^?nwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ w?t^amwe [wa + u + t^?nwe]. That makes perfect sense to me. It?s the normal meaning and order for the a- and o- locatives. I don?t see a problem here, but maybe I didn?t get one of the messages in the sequence. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Sat Sep 7 21:48:12 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 14:48:12 -0700 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370B9FD@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave > It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sat Sep 7 23:09:58 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 23:09:58 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 8 13:13:33 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:13:33 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB10@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 14:50:01 2013 From: dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET (Darla Spencer) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:50:01 -0400 Subject: Class in NA linguistics Message-ID: Hi all, I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. Thanks, Darla Spencer Sent from my iPad From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 14:58:02 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:58:02 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <1f742c739527483e99829a40e550a88c@DB3PR06MB155.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from ?mirror-glass? in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saponi360 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 8 14:46:17 2013 From: saponi360 at yahoo.com (Scott Collins) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 07:46:17 -0700 Subject: Help on Explaining 'issippi' Message-ID: Old names for the river include "Clinch's River" and "Pelisipi River" (and variant spellings such as "Pelisippi" and "Pellissippi").[1] The name Pellissippi that appears on some early maps is said to have been the Cherokees' name for the river and is said to mean "winding waters" in the Cherokee language.[2] [2] "The Pellissippi State Story 1974-1998". Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved July 24, 2013. Note: The Cherokee origin of "Pellissippi" is questionable, as there is no ?P? sound in the Cherokee syllabary (D. Ray Smith. "View of the Bear Creek Valley". Retrieved July 24, 2013.). ? I had looked in the name Mosopelea-sippi or Mosopeleacipi, a name the Indians called the Ohio River. This ending portion of the words used for river names is what I have been wondering about. The above mention of the old Indian name for the Clinch River is Pelisipi/Pelissippi/Pellissippi. When I first saw this I knew it was not a Cherokee name or word based on my research on the Mosopelea-sippi name and the possible connection to Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Algonquin) and/or?(the Shawnee place names for rivers). Kis-ke-pi-la-se-pe?( another name for the Ohio River) Other River Names with same endings: Mississippi Shipakicipi Misseouscipi The?Ohio River?(Seneca:?ohi:y?)?(Shawnee:?Pelewathiipi?or?Spelewathiipi);? In seeing a similarity with Pelewathiipi and Pelisipi/Pelissippi I am wondering what this means and whether it was a generic type of term or perhaps a descriptive term. Obviously the Clinch River isn't the same as the Ohio River so I'm curious as to how the Cherokee began to use this name for the Clinch. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Clip_of_Franquelin's_map_of_Louisiana_1684.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 365914 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rankin at ku.edu Sun Sep 8 16:37:39 2013 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:37:39 +0000 Subject: Help on Explaining 'issippi' In-Reply-To: <1378651577.36574.YahooMailNeo@web181406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is Algonquian for RIVER. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Scott Collins wrote: Old names for the river include "Clinch's River" and "Pelisipi River" (and variant spellings such as "Pelisippi" and "Pellissippi").[1] The name Pellissippi that appears on some early maps is said to have been the Cherokees' name for the river and is said to mean "winding waters" in the Cherokee language.[2] [2] "The Pellissippi State Story 1974-1998". Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved July 24, 2013. Note: The Cherokee origin of "Pellissippi" is questionable, as there is no ?P? sound in the Cherokee syllabary (D. Ray Smith. "View of the Bear Creek Valley". Retrieved July 24, 2013.). I had looked in the name Mosopelea-sippi or Mosopeleacipi, a name the Indians called the Ohio River. This ending portion of the words used for river names is what I have been wondering about. The above mention of the old Indian name for the Clinch River is Pelisipi/Pelissippi/Pellissippi. When I first saw this I knew it was not a Cherokee name or word based on my research on the Mosopelea-sippi name and the possible connection to Anishinaabe (Ojibwe or Algonquin) and/or (the Shawnee place names for rivers). Kis-ke-pi-la-se-pe ( another name for the Ohio River) Other River Names with same endings: Mississippi Shipakicipi Misseouscipi The Ohio River (Seneca: ohi:y?) (Shawnee: Pelewathiipi or Spelewathiipi); In seeing a similarity with Pelewathiipi and Pelisipi/Pelissippi I am wondering what this means and whether it was a generic type of term or perhaps a descriptive term. Obviously the Clinch River isn't the same as the Ohio River so I'm curious as to how the Cherokee began to use this name for the Clinch. 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 Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Sun Sep 8 17:08:51 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:08:51 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB63@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think there may be a borrowed Lakota form for 'to baptise', if I correctly recall a 1950s article by Voegelin and Hymes. Thanks for the [elkar] form - maybe it explains the appeal of Basque to Dutch scholars such as Rudolf de Rijk and Peter Bakker. : ) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 15:58 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mckay020 at UMN.EDU Sun Sep 8 18:16:20 2013 From: mckay020 at UMN.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?Q8yjYcaedGUgTWHMgXph?=) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:16:20 -0500 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: <732456D4-4018-4E7F-82B7-EE207B65DC20@suddenlink.net> Message-ID: Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. -neil On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer wrote: > Hi all, > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. > Thanks, > Darla Spencer > > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 18:21:54 2013 From: dispencer at SUDDENLINK.NET (Darla Spencer) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:21:54 -0400 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Neil, Thanks very much! Darla Darla Spencer, RPA 1526 Autumn Road Charleston, WV 25314 (304) 561-4753 From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of C?a?te Ma?za Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 2:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Class in NA linguistics Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. -neil On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer wrote: > Hi all, > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the area. > Thanks, > Darla Spencer > > > > Sent from my iPad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Sun Sep 8 19:01:56 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:01:56 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAB63@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: /oglasin/ would be the vertitive (?) form of okasin, 'to look into', right? But then what is the /mi/? Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 9:58 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Anthony Grant [Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think SR Riggs recorded miyoglasin~ from 'mirror-glass' in a Dakota variety. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: 08 September 2013 00:10 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Good question! This reminds me of my favorite "Siouanist turned Athabascanist" pet peeve. Sapir famously said that there is something about Athabascan languages that prevents them from borrowing from other languages. This never convinced me, since Siouan languages borrow very little from other languages as well, and structurally they are less complex than Athabascan. The only loanword I can think of in traditional Lakota is bebela, from French bebe. Of course I am sure that in modern Lakota, when everyone is bilingual if not dominant in English, there is a lot of English... But that is true of modern Navajo as well. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 4:48 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It's hard to say whether the "different" Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Sun Sep 8 21:15:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:15:35 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to ?dabble? in the various languages. It?s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native ?look? to them. mit?kopa, m??g?, etc. ?bow?, as in ?bow-and-arrow?, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagm??za, wadw??, wi?aw??, etc. ?squash, pumpkin? is a loan. wagmiza, wamn?heza, etc. ?corn? are loan adaptations, based on ?squash?. h?mn??ke, h?bl??ge, etc. ?beans? is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ?long knives? and ?fire water? terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the sagana?, ??gl??a, s?znak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha g?????e, l????e, l???ye, etc. terms for ?big? are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kk?wa, kkaw?ye, etc. ?horse? terms are loans from Spanish. oth??we, tt??m?, ht??w?, etc. ?town, band, settlement, etc.? are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. ???kka ?nine? is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don?t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ?trap? for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, ?w, ?m sorts of things. I don?t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey?s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can?t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don?t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven?t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. N? or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn?t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey?s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Sun Sep 8 22:38:28 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:38:28 -0700 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, I know you and John probably told me about this 20 years ago, but which Siouan language is mit?kopa from? That one's pretty blatant, since it's all over Algonquian and it has a clear etymology ("wood string") in that family. I suspect that "nine" word is ultimately borrowed from Algonquian into Siouan (and not the other way around), but its etymology isn't totally clean in Algonquian, either. Rich and I took a stab at that one in our paper for the Frank Siebert festscrift. Also, wasn't Ojibwe ogichidaa 'warrior' borrowed into Dakotan? This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Dave > I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. > > Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to ?dabble? in the various languages. It?s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native ?look? to them. > > mit?kopa, m??g?, etc. ?bow?, as in ?bow-and-arrow?, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. > Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. > wagm??za, wadw??, wi?aw??, etc. ?squash, pumpkin? is a loan. > wagmiza, wamn?heza, etc. ?corn? are loan adaptations, based on ?squash?. > h?mn??ke, h?bl??ge, etc. ?beans? is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. > All the various ?long knives? and ?fire water? terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. > All the sagana?, ??gl??a, s?znak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. > All the Dhegiha g?????e, l????e, l???ye, etc. terms for ?big? are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. > The various kk?wa, kkaw?ye, etc. ?horse? terms are loans from Spanish. > oth??we, tt??m?, ht??w?, etc. ?town, band, settlement, etc.? are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. > ???kka ?nine? is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. > There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. > > There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don?t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ?trap? for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, ?w, ?m sorts of things. I don?t even know if they are native or not. > > In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey?s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. > > You can?t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don?t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven?t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. > > Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. N? or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. > > And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn?t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey?s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. > > We still have much to learn. > > Bob > Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. > > Dave > >> It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:49:13 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:49:13 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob: I still feel miyoglas'in is not from 'mirrorglass', since the Lakota word is 4 syllables long, and the English has 3. But you are right, study of loans is just beginning, at least in the Plains and surrounding areas. It seems to me that in general Plains and Prairie languages do not borrow much, for cultural reasons I assume. But as you show, there is more than we think... It is different in the Arctic, where loans from Russian or Chukchi are common, and in the Subarctic where loans from Russian or French are common. In the Southwest we have a layer of old loans from Spanish everywhere, but otherwise very little borrowing from each other... Also I think Dave is the one who noted that Hochank is surrounded by Algonquian, not me. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 4:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to ?dabble? in the various languages. It?s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native ?look? to them. mit?kopa, m??g?, etc. ?bow?, as in ?bow-and-arrow?, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagm??za, wadw??, wi?aw??, etc. ?squash, pumpkin? is a loan. wagmiza, wamn?heza, etc. ?corn? are loan adaptations, based on ?squash?. h?mn??ke, h?bl??ge, etc. ?beans? is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ?long knives? and ?fire water? terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the sagana?, ??gl??a, s?znak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha g?????e, l????e, l???ye, etc. terms for ?big? are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kk?wa, kkaw?ye, etc. ?horse? terms are loans from Spanish. oth??we, tt??m?, ht??w?, etc. ?town, band, settlement, etc.? are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. ???kka ?nine? is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don?t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ?trap? for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, ?w, ?m sorts of things. I don?t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey?s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can?t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don?t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven?t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. N? or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn?t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey?s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:51:05 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:51:05 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370BFE6@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) ? I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Sun Sep 8 23:57:50 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:57:50 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5eb738b4040e44259e1438506ef7baf0@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin ? It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) ? I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 00:25:21 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:25:21 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD20@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Five syll. actually. GL counts as two syllables. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Hi Bob: I still feel miyoglas'in is not from 'mirrorglass', since the Lakota word is 4 syllables long, and the English has 3. But you are right, study of loans is just beginning, at least in the Plains and surrounding areas. It seems to me that in general Plains and Prairie languages do not borrow much, for cultural reasons I assume. But as you show, there is more than we think... It is different in the Arctic, where loans from Russian or Chukchi are common, and in the Subarctic where loans from Russian or French are common. In the Southwest we have a layer of old loans from Spanish everywhere, but otherwise very little borrowing from each other... Also I think Dave is the one who noted that Hochank is surrounded by Algonquian, not me. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 4:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. Be that as it may, though, the study of loanwords in Native languages is just beginning. Most of the linguists who converted to Americanist interests have tended to ?dabble? in the various languages. It?s understandable that we have concentrated on basic phonology, morphology and syntax, but it takes more than that to uncover borrowings. A lot of them are quite old and often have a native ?look? to them. mit?kopa, m??g?, etc. ?bow?, as in ?bow-and-arrow?, is a loan. John Koontz has written about these. Tobacco terms are widely borrowed. wagm??za, wadw??, wi?aw??, etc. ?squash, pumpkin? is a loan. wagmiza, wamn?heza, etc. ?corn? are loan adaptations, based on ?squash?. h?mn??ke, h?bl??ge, etc. ?beans? is a loan. I covered these in the Histories of Maize anthology. All the various ?long knives? and ?fire water? terms are loans or loan-translations. Goddard has written about these and others. All the sagana?, ??gl??a, s?znak, etc. terms are loans, as we know. All the Dhegiha g?????e, l????e, l???ye, etc. terms for ?big? are loans from Spanish grande. Pointed out by Quintero, Rankin and others. The various kk?wa, kkaw?ye, etc. ?horse? terms are loans from Spanish. oth??we, tt??m?, ht??w?, etc. ?town, band, settlement, etc.? are probably loans. My paper on Tomahitan deals with this. ???kka ?nine? is a loan either from Siouan to Algonquian or the other way around. There are numerous names of wild animals that are widespread among North American language families. Michael Nichols has written about these. There are loans all over the place in Native languages, but unless you happen to know all the nearby languages, they don?t jump out at you like they do with European languages. If you want to really get into the study of loans in Siouan, you should start with words that contain apparent reflexes of the long list of non-Siouan consonant clusters. In Lakota start with gm, gw clusters, as in ?trap? for example. You might expect to find Algonquian kw clusters as sources for these. Other Dakotan clusters that seem to have peculiar combinations (that seem to be lacking in, say, Dhegiha) include sw, sm, ?w, ?m sorts of things. I don?t even know if they are native or not. In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey?s Law vowel. The CSD is a pretty fair starting place. You can?t necessarily expect contact to be shown by loanwords however. As Willem points out, some Native languages seem to resist direct lexical borrowing. I personally don?t know whether this is literally true or whether it just looks that way because we, as individual linguists, haven?t had experience with enough of the different languages in a given area. Hochunk is suspicious simply because it is surrounded by Algonquian, again as Willem notices. Specifically, there is the pronoun I mentioned earlier. N? or nie is used for 1st person singular AND 2nd person sg. We might expect this for 2sg, but where might ni refer to 1sg?? DING! Right! Algonquian. And how about syllable structure? Siouan languages permit a wide variety of clusters, but Hochunk doesn?t allow many of these. Why not? Does Dorsey?s Law result in a more Algonquian-like syllable structure? There are various structural possibilities for demonstrating contact beyond loanwords though. We still have much to learn. Bob ________________________________ Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. Dave It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 00:44:22 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:44:22 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5eb738b4040e44259e1438506ef7baf0@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: My understanding has always been that Williamson IS Riggs. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin ? It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) ? I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 01:11:29 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:11:29 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bob, I know you and John probably told me about this 20 years ago, but which Siouan language is mit?kopa from? That one's pretty blatant, since it's all over Algonquian and it has a clear etymology ("wood string") in that family. That's Dakotan. But all the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages plus Tutelo have some version of this loan, probably from different Algonquian dialects. I think Hochunk is m??g? and may well be from Menomini. It is underlying Hochunk m?tk?. I also talk about 'bow' in that Histories of Maize paper. I suspect that "nine" word is ultimately borrowed from Algonquian into Siouan (and not the other way around), but its etymology isn't totally clean in Algonquian, either. Rich and I took a stab at that one in our paper for the Frank Siebert festscrift. Yes, I read it. You and Rich may be right. Ives and I have gone back and forth over this. When I last talked with him about it he took the view that Algonquian borrowed it from Siouan and I took the opposite view. I guess neither family wants the poor orphan. > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). > Also, wasn't Ojibwe ogichidaa 'warrior' borrowed into Dakotan? In Kaw (Kansa) and other Dhegiha dialects it's akkida, so I'm guessing it's native to Siouan and borrowed by Ojibwe. Does it have an Algonquian etymology? If so, it's another shankka conundrum. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 01:51:56 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 01:51:56 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C20D@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: They were part of the same missionary enterprise. As I understand, Riggs and Williamson?s father were two of a group of missionaries that settled in Minnesota among the Dakota starting about 1834 and did language work with that tribe. Riggs published a dictionary and grammar of Dakota in 1852, and an expanded version of his Dakota-English dictionary was published in 1892. The younger Williamson took on the editing job of producing an English-Dakota dictionary to match, and published this in 1902. So yes, Williamson would have pretty much the same corpus as Riggs. But not necessarily always exactly the same. Note that Williamson lists a Y. form, mniokdasi?, which does not appear in that form in Riggs. Likewise, the mni-y?-hda-si? (Santee?) in Riggs does not appear in Williamson, so far as I can tell. Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:44 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Miyoglasin My understanding has always been that Williamson IS Riggs. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin > It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) > I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- to mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Mon Sep 9 02:26:41 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 20:26:41 -0600 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <95E92C98-09D4-49D7-8E95-4C8AACAAFAD8@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave, Bob, et al.-- The Lakota (Dakota?) greeting from man to man, "hau", is a loan from somewhere (the phonology is simply wrong for Dakotan). Has anyone figured that out? Also, I should point out that there is currently some substantial work with Hocank that perhaps some of the people on this list don't know about. In addition to Iren Hartmann and Johannes Helmbrecht, whom most of us know from the conferences, there is a long paper on Hocank morphology by Helmbrecht and Christian Lehmann in a book I helped edit a few years ago, "Lessons from documented endangered languages" (John Benjamin's). Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Sat, 7 Sep 2013, David Costa wrote: > Bob, are you aware of any Algonquian influences on Hochunk? Despite their being an island of Siouan in a sea of Algonquian languages, they seem to have mixed very little with the Algonquians in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of a single Hochunk loan in any Algonquian language. > > Dave > >> It?s hard to say whether the ?different? Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian, > > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 9 14:23:14 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:23:14 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Five syll. actually. GL counts as two syllables. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:15:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAE8D@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:18:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:18:35 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Oh, and perhaps we should establish whether we're going to stick with syllables or morae. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:15 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 15:22:55 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:22:55 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370B9FD@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? > The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing "whatchacome" wa-. I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-'s. I've always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though. It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like 'us' and '(animate) them' would be a very natural development for a "whatchacome" wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object. ? ? I think the 'us' morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be. It often seems to be associated with another -a- that leaves it long. Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question. Yes. The 'us' seems to be handled a little bit differently than animate 'them'. In the causative in Omaha, 'us' is /-awa-/, while animate 'them' is simply /-wa-/. Otherwise, both are /wa-/, but when the affixed pronoun is initial, the /wa-/ seems to draw the accent if it means 'us', while letting it go to the next syllable if it means 'them'. That might indicate that there is an extra /-a-/ following the /wa-/ for 'us', which would make it long and draw the accent. This would suggest two original morphemes to make 'us': /a/ + /wa/ in the causative, and /wa/ + /a/ in other contexts. If that is our hypothesis, is there any reason to assume that the underlying /wa/ component of the 'us' construction is any different from the plain /wa/ of animate 'them' or from the general "whatchacome" /wa/ ? ? > Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the 'I' form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard 'we' form. (I'm going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.) ? ? That would be surprising too. The form without -(a)wi should already be 'inclusive' as it is in the other languages. I don't know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb. I could be corrected on this though. I thought I remembered a discussion many years ago (maybe 6 or 8 or so?) on the list which probably involved John Koontz. What I had taken away from it was that there were certain dialects of Hocank in which, uniquely in Siouan, all four "person" categories could be pluralized. The 'I'-plural contrasted with the 'we', singular and plural, in that one meant inclusive we (including the person spoken to) and the other meant exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you). Looking at what I typed above, I suspect I got those reversed, assuming I'm remembering it right at all. In any case, if you don't recall this, and it doesn't seem right to you, let's just shelve the thought until we can either find the discussion or get expert input from somebody who really knows Hocank. ? > Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi. The elements are the same; it's only the meanings that are different. ? ? I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from -api. I don't see a difference in meaning really. It means 'pluralizer' throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan. Maybe you're talking about the 3sg use of -abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called 'proximate vs. obviative'. I guess I'd consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer. But, again, I could be corrected on this. I think the question here is the semantic history of the *(a)pi particle in MVS. We are in agreement that the reflexes of this particle in two of the three branches of MVS, Dakotan and Hocank-IOM, primarily indicate plurality. In Dhegiha, it is more complicated. In Omaha, we have two particles to consider. The (a)bi particle primarily signals that the foregoing is hearsay or hypothesis, i.e., that it is to be taken with a grain of salt. It is used almost exclusively in the third person, singular and plural. The (a)i particle is, or was, used in some contexts to indicate plurality, especially the plural command and probably the indicative plural of 'you' and 'we'. It largely dropped out of the language in the 20th century, leaving only its a-grade ablaut behind, but in the 19th century it was used most commonly as the opposite to (a)bi, to signal that the foregoing is straight fact according to the testimony of the speaker. In this role, it also occurs in the third person, equally in singular and plural. Both (a)bi and (a)i also imply what John called "proximate", or what I might call "narrative action", in contrast to the case in which neither particle occurs, which I believe is what John called "obviative", or what I think we might consider declaration of a state of action or a general truth. This is the first I've known you to propose that 3sg use of (a)bi in Dhegiha is a distinct morpheme. Can you elaborate on that a bit? Are you claiming that the (a)bi particle is not derived from the same MVS *(a)pi particle that gives us the pluralizing (a)pi particle in Dakotan and pluralizing (a)wi in Hocank-IOM? In that case, would you claim that the (a)i particle IS derived from it, but not (a)bi? Or is it only in the 3sg case that you would consider it different? I.e., for [verb](a)bi, the (a)bi is a different morpheme depending on whether the subject is singular or plural? In this case, would you postulate separate (a)i morphemes as well, depending on whether the subject of [verb](a)i is singular or plural? Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 9 16:43:26 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:43:26 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Ok, but in a purely synchronic phonological analysis of Lakota (disregarding history and morphology), you would have to say that these CCV syllables are one syllable, starting with a cluster. Right? That is the analysis of Boas and Deloria, Carter, Shaw. I know I am a little bit out of the loop in Siouan studies, but is there a more modern study of Lakota phonology showing that these are synchronically 2 syllables? I don't mean to go into a big argument regarding this, but I am just curious. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:15 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. ________________________________ > Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Sep 9 16:44:08 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:44:08 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C268@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 17:27:47 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:27:47 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That?s very helpful. Thanks, Iren! I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don?t fully understand the phonology. Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don?t really understand the derivation of. I?m very relieved to have confirmation on that pluralization paradigm, that I hadn?t totally lost my mind. What I told Sky earlier was backwards, though. It was the ?I?-plural that was exclusive, and the ?we? or ?dual? form that is inclusive, as Bob indicated in his earlier message on Saturday. One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:44 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Mon Sep 9 18:08:38 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:08:38 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all: Some random stuff mostly about loans. Iren and Bob are quite right ? there is still so much more to learn about loans even in areas (such as the Plains) where we think loans are infrequent. This is one reason why dictionaries are so important. I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me ? items for ?cucumber? from French concombre, and also ttapuska ?student, teacher? which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. But mostly Plains languages seem to go in for what I call iron rations borrowing ? loans are taken over sparingly and are put hard to work in compounds etc. There are some loans between Native lgs in the Southwest (Zuni is usually the recipient from Piman, Keresan etc) but that field needs to be explored too. Bob?s list of ?suspect clusters? is the kind of information we need so much when looking for possible loans. Mirror glass, btw, is the glass one uses to make mirrors with ? in earlier days glass with a coating of mercury so that reflection would work. I don?t know about ?hau? but Comanche ?aho? (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Anthony. From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: 09 September 2013 17:44 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi all, sorry, I was away for a couple of days and am having now trouble following the different discussions, but I'm trying my best to catch up :-) As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Sep 9 19:17:22 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:17:22 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09068625807a40a8a413ce50b7be1526@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Mon Sep 9 19:25:26 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:25:26 +0200 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD45@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Dear all: I think that there are more loan words in traditional Lakota than one may think. Here are some examples: asp?la (from aspirin) b?bela ?baby? from French khukh??e ?pig? from French ku?k??la - ?cucumber? kham?te ?committee? pus?la ? ?cat? spak?li ?spaghetti? I recorded these word from fluent traditional speakers, although it is true that not all of them are recognized across the community. Such is the case of spak?li, asp?la and pus?la, but the other ones are fully standardized lexical items. And I am quite sure that this is not the full list. I am intrigued by Bob?s comment that oth??wahe ?town? might be borrowing as well. I recall reading somewhere (perhaps in one of John Koontz?s materials, but I could be wrong) that the word it?zipa ?bow? is a loan as well. Also, many speakers told me how their monolingual Lakota speaking grandparents Lakotized the children?s English names because they couldn?t pronounce them. For example Delores was called ??elowi??, Imogene was ?Imo?ila? etc. I have documented dozens of these. I think that this could be another indication that Lakota speakers were quite open to borrowing words from other languages. Contemporary speakers are usually very reluctant to do so, but I think this might have been different when the majority of speakers were still monolingual. I wouldn?t be at all surprised if there were lots of loans from other tribes, especially on fauna and flora. As for ?mirror? I have always been skeptical about the ?mirror glass? etymology because the analyses that involves mn? ?water? and a possessive or reflexive of ?kas?i? ?to peer into? seem quite convincing and is consistent across dialects. But again, I can be wrong and it wouldn?t be for the first time. Jan From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:58 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin ? It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) ? I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 20:57:58 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:57:58 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ? Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hooca?k perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don?t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/ja?a?, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 22:51:00 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:51:00 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAED6@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: > Ok, but in a purely synchronic phonological analysis of Lakota (disregarding history and morphology), you would have to say that these CCV syllables are one syllable, starting with a cluster. Right? That is the analysis of Boas and Deloria, Carter, Shaw. If they actually make such assertions I think it's from a Eurocentric view of the syllable. It's what we were taught in grade school. I used to do an experiment in phonology class asking how many syllables were in the word TRAIN (as in choo choo). All Americans said "one". Spanish and Portuguese speakers said "two" and Korean and Japanese speakers all said "four". Everyone relied on training and on their native languages, etc. The question to ask is how those linguists handled accent on words beginning with GL or BL (incl. MN) clusters. Here's an interesting question though: What percentage of words beginning with BL, MN or GL carry accent on the second vowel to the right counting from the beginning of the word? In Kaw the answer shows pretty clearly that those CC clusters are counted as having an extra syllable. These are nearly all initial syllable accented words. How would Pat, Dick, Trudy or others handle that "linguistically significant generalization"? Should they just ignore it? > I know I am a little bit out of the loop in Siouan studies, but is there a more modern study of Lakota phonology showing that these are synchronically 2 syllables? I understand what you're saying, but there's no such thing in modern phonology as an analysis that completely disregards rules of accent placement/shift, morpheme/word boundaries, or even the actual identities of morphemes. In addition, although we can say that we are disregarding "history", various rules/constraints are always affected materially by the relative chronology of changes in the phonological system that took place centuries ago. We just invent purely synchronic ways of talking about such information. In standard generative phonology it was extrinsic rule ordering along with tags within rules like "minus rule 159" or "plus French loan", etc., later on it was lexical compartmentalization, rules were replaced with constraints and so forth. I lost track after the beginning of "optimology", but no matter what the model, the data will require consideration of all these characteristics of language. As linguists became disillusioned with endless phonological theorizing, phoneticians reasserted themselves and we were treated to the "IPA fetish" and 20 minute Power Point spectrogram presentations desperately condensed into 3 minutes because of laptop glitches at LSA/SSILA. They liked to ignore the complexities of phonology to concentrate on machines and minutiae. > I don't mean to go into a big argument regarding this, but I am just curious. Oh, don't worry, I don't take these discussions personally. I just think it's important to air all the issues for the sake of all the eager young students who read our stuff. :-). Best, Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:01:37 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob ________________________________ As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:12:38 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:12:38 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <09068625807a40a8a413ce50b7be1526@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don?t fully understand the phonology. Yes, it's irregular. > Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. First person *wa is missing in action. Second person *yi turns up regularly in Lakota as chi because PSI *y becomes aspirated ch in Lakota. This irregular portmanteau is a good part of the evidence for considering the second person historically *y, not r- Irregular morphology retains the more conservative pronominal. > In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don?t really understand the derivation of. First person *wa plus second person *yi contracts to wi. And, again, the irregular morphology retains the conservative form -- this time of the 1st person. The W was lost everywhere else in Dhegiha. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Mon Sep 9 23:46:40 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:46:40 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C938@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Bob! That helps. I'm still a bit puzzled by Lakhota chi though. If first person *wa is actually missing from the portmanteau, why isn't the outcome the same as we get for second person *yi alone? And why doesn't second person undergoer *yi itself go to aspirated /chi/ rather than (I think) ni ? For Dhegiha wi, we apparently get a second *wa after the wi and before the verb when the inflected root starts with a simple stop or *r (non-standard or consonant-type inflection). That fact had thrown me, since it led me to suppose that the *wa came after the *yi rather than before it. But I suppose this is just a secondary reanalysis in Dhegiha making for double inflection? Is it only Dhegiha that does this after the portmanteau? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 6:13 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. > I think that portmanteau is common across MVS, though I don't fully understand the phonology. Yes, it's irregular. > Dick Carter worked it out on the board for me for Lakhota /chi-/ once when he was teaching at UNL in the 1990s. He was pleased with himself, but went so fast he left my head spinning. First person *wa is missing in action. Second person *yi turns up regularly in Lakota as chi because PSI *y becomes aspirated ch in Lakota. This irregular portmanteau is a good part of the evidence for considering the second person historically *y, not r- Irregular morphology retains the more conservative pronominal. > In Omaha, the corresponding morpheme is /wi(p)/, which again I don't really understand the derivation of. First person *wa plus second person *yi contracts to wi. And, again, the irregular morphology retains the conservative form -- this time of the 1st person. The W was lost everywhere else in Dhegiha. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 00:48:40 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:48:40 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me ? items for ?cucumber? from French concombre, and also ttapuska ?student, teacher? which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don?t know about ?hau? but Comanche ?aho? (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Maybe. The word is ??kk?a?li and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as ?kane I think. Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ?as??hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. Ofo k??tat??ka Sw k??ctat?cga ? nine; p. 325. Some words where ? is expected turn up with ?t instead. So this may contain some variant of shankka somehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:01:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:01:20 +0000 Subject: Miyoglasin In-Reply-To: <003e01cead92$56a6de50$03f49af0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Thanks for the expert commentary and additional examples. Oth??wahe ?town? is another one of those wanderwoerter that has similar forms in Dakotan, Dhegiha, and Biloxi as well as Choctaw and Chickasaw. I'm surprised it doesn't seem to be in Chiwere or Hochunk. I think it turns up in Virginia in the tribal name Tomahitan, which would mean 'big town' also in Biloxi. It's not out of the question that the word is native Siouan, but the distribution and sound correspondences don't make me feel good. :-) Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Dear all: I think that there are more loan words in traditional Lakota than one may think. Here are some examples: asp?la (from aspirin) b?bela ?baby? from French khukh??e ?pig? from French ku?k??la - ?cucumber? kham?te ?committee? pus?la ? ?cat? spak?li ?spaghetti? I recorded these word from fluent traditional speakers, although it is true that not all of them are recognized across the community. Such is the case of spak?li, asp?la and pus?la, but the other ones are fully standardized lexical items. And I am quite sure that this is not the full list. I am intrigued by Bob?s comment that oth??wahe ?town? might be borrowing as well. I recall reading somewhere (perhaps in one of John Koontz?s materials, but I could be wrong) that the word it?zipa ?bow? is a loan as well. Also, many speakers told me how their monolingual Lakota speaking grandparents Lakotized the children?s English names because they couldn?t pronounce them. For example Delores was called ??elowi??, Imogene was ?Imo?ila? etc. I have documented dozens of these. I think that this could be another indication that Lakota speakers were quite open to borrowing words from other languages. Contemporary speakers are usually very reluctant to do so, but I think this might have been different when the majority of speakers were still monolingual. I wouldn?t be at all surprised if there were lots of loans from other tribes, especially on fauna and flora. As for ?mirror? I have always been skeptical about the ?mirror glass? etymology because the analyses that involves mn? ?water? and a possessive or reflexive of ?kas?i? ?to peer into? seem quite convincing and is consistent across dialects. But again, I can be wrong and it wouldn?t be for the first time. Jan From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:58 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin Thanks for the very detailed miyoglas'in discussion, Rory. I agree, and I like the expression 'chiming calque'. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 6:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Miyoglasin > It is not unlikely that this was influenced by "mirrorglass". But it has a good Lakota etymology (see the New Lakota Dictionary), so this is NOT a loan from English. (Coincidences happen. My favorite is [elkar] which means 'each other' in Dutch and in Basque.) > I have to admit that I?m very skeptical of 5 syllable long ?coincidences?, so it seems to me more likely that ?mirror? is a loanword from either French or English that may have been reanalyzed in terms of the vertitive given in the new dictionary. The word miyoglasin, together with several variants of the term, appears in both Williamson and Riggs: Riggs: mi-y?-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror, looking glass. See mioglasi?. m?-o-gla-si?, n. T. a mirror. See mniohdasi?. mni-y?-hda-si?, n. a looking-glass; window glass. See mioglasi?. Williamson: mirror, n. Ihdiyomdasi?. Y. Mniokdasi?. T. Miyoglasi?. Riggs: i-hd?-yo-mda-si?, n. a looking-glass, mirror. T., miyoglasi?. See aokasi? and okasi?. a-?-ka-si?, v.a. to look into, peep into?aowakasi?, aoyakasi?, aou?kasi?pi. ?-ka-si?, v. to look into. See aokasi?, kas?i?, and okaki?. ka-s???, adv. appearing, in sight. See aokasi? and okasi?. The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself?, which makes very good sense for the meaning of ?mirror?. The Yankton and one of the Santee forms suggest that the word originally began with the term m(i)ni, ?water?, rather than the undefined element /mi/. The other Santee form shows that ?oil?, ihdi, could be substituted for ?water? to get the same sense (though in this case, they are apparently using a different instrumental prefix?not sure why). Most likely, native people were perfectly familiar with the concept of looking into a pool of clear, still liquid to see their own faces long before European mirrors ever appeared. These dictionaries were developed in the 19th century, and the suite of terms taken together shows the approximate etymology without having to assume a recent reanalysis. Only the Teton/Lakhota form shows any notable similarity to ?mirrorglass?, and then only because that dialect happens to use the cluster /gl/ where other dialects use /hd/ or /kd/. This almost certainly is not a simple loanword from French or English. French seems to have both ?miroir? and ?glace? as words for ?mirror?, where English has ?mirror? and ?looking-glass?. But was a term like ?mirrorglass? actually in circulation in either language in the 18th or 19th centuries? I don?t find it in my English dictionary, or in the French dictionary either. If we can document that this compound was commonly used a couple of centuries ago, then perhaps the Lakhota form was influenced by it to the extent of changing initial mni- mi-. Otherwise, I think the ?coincidence? here may actually illustrate the process of creating a chiming calque, in this case, from Lakhota into English. Cheers, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From munro at UCLA.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:05:53 2013 From: munro at UCLA.EDU (Pamela Munro) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:05:53 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CA0E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I have an alternative view on Western Muskogean 'nine'. Chickasaw ch?kka'li / chakk?'li 'to be nine' (cognate to the Choctaw forms Bob cites) seems quite clearly to be a g[eminate]-grade form (i.e. ablauted aspectual form) of a verb chakali 'to be pregnant, great with child', which my Chickasaw teacher knows but regards as Choctaw. You might not immediately see a connection between 'nine', and 'pregnant', but a variety of languages express 'nine' as something like 'just about ready to reach (something, i.e. ten)', so I believe that these two verbs are in fact related. This suggests that the WM forms have their own etymology and thus aren't likely to be loans. Bob is correct that -li can be a verb ending in these languages (e.g. in chokma 'to be good' / chokmali 'to make good'). I don't know any evidence that the -li in 'to be nine' is segmentable, however, unless one believes that all verb-final li's are segmentable. Pam On 9/9/13 5:48 PM, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me ? items for ?cucumber? from French concombre, and > also ttapuska ?student, teacher? which is shared by Dhegiha and > Pawnee. I don?t know about ?hau? but Comanche ?aho? (hello) is > supposed to come from Kiowa. > > Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't > think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with /kko > /the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a > coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > > > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) > > > Maybe. The word is/??kk?a?li/ and -/ali/ is an ending all right. It > is borrowed into Biloxi as /?kane /I think. > > > Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has /?as??hka/, so it is > definitely in the /shankka/ zone. > > > Ofo /*k??tat??ka*//Sw //k??ctat?cga/ ? nine;//p. 325. Some words > where /?/is expected turn up with /?t/instead. So this may contain > some variant of /shankka/ somehow. The prefix with /k/ mirrors Tutelo > to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. > > > So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and > maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and > Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but > there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. > > > Bob > > -- Pamela Munro, Distinguished Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:10:15 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:10:15 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. No need. You're absolutely right. The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:15:46 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 19:15:46 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C475@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. > ________________________________ > >> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. > > Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ > > It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. > > Bob > From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:26:48 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:26:48 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I?m still a bit puzzled by Lakhota chi though. If first person *wa is actually missing from the portmanteau, why isn?t the outcome the same as we get for second person *yi alone? And why doesn?t second person undergoer *yi itself go to aspirated /chi/ rather than (I think) ni ? *y- of the 2nd person was replaced with r in MVS. There are just relics of the 2nd sg. in y-. For Dhegiha wi, we apparently get a second *wa after the wi and before the verb when the inflected root starts with a simple stop or *r (non-standard or consonant-type inflection). That fact had thrown me, since it led me to suppose that the *wa came after the *yi rather than before it. But I suppose this is just a secondary reanalysis in Dhegiha making for double inflection? If you like conundra the order of agent and patient in the portmanteaux should keep you busy. It's true in Kaw also that the I/you prefix, wi- often gets a second 1st sg. prefix on the following verb. That's just what Dick Carter called "layering". When one layer becomes unanalyzable to speakers, they just add another. > Is it only Dhegiha that does this after the portmanteau? I don't know. Dakotanists?? Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:36:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:36:20 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <522E7071.9000602@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the nice contribution, Pam. I certainly wouldn't argue with your interpretation. We may be dealing with another coincidence. I can't otherwise explain why, if Choctaw and Chickasaw borrowed the word, they didn't simply replace sh with sh. They have their own sh after all. Bob > Chickasaw ch?kka'li / chakk?'li 'to be nine' (cognate to the Choctaw forms Bob cites) seems quite clearly to be a g[eminate]-grade form (i.e. ablauted aspectual form) of a verb chakali 'to be pregnant, great with child', which my Chickasaw teacher knows but regards as Choctaw. > You might not immediately see a connection between 'nine', and 'pregnant', but a variety of languages express 'nine' as something like 'just about ready to reach (something, i.e. ten)', so I believe that these two verbs are in fact related. This suggests that the WM forms have their own etymology and thus aren't likely to be loans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Tue Sep 10 01:44:08 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:44:08 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CA0E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Dave > > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me ? items for ?cucumber? from French concombre, and also ttapuska ?student, teacher? which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don?t know about ?hau? but Comanche ?aho? (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. > > Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > > > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) > > Maybe. The word is ??kk?a?li and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as ?kane I think. > > Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ?as??hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. > > Ofo k??tat??ka Sw k??ctat?cga ? nine; p. 325. Some words where ? is expected turn up with ?t instead. So this may contain some variant of shankkasomehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. > > So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. > > Bob > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:51:52 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:51:52 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. > ________________________________ > >> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. > > Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ > > It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. > > Bob > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 01:58:32 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:58:32 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <73567A65-1147-4708-B448-83223AE1B7E1@earthlink.net> Message-ID: > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 10 02:15:36 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:15:36 -0500 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC78@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a.nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a.nka, not *?a.nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Tue Sep 10 02:23:44 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:23:44 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC09@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the interesting comments, Bob. And thanks for your input, David. Yes, this is indeed what I also find. If Bob was correct about Lakota stress rules, then the numerous verbs with blu-, glu-, bla- gla-, would have stress on the first syllable, but they don't. I think I am not Eurocentric about my phonology, though. (After all, the first class in good ole American phonology I ever took, as a young wide-eyed European whippersnapper, was with you, Bob.) The Eurocentrics are the ones who gave us Minnesota for mnisota, etc. I admit to being a Lakotacentric sort of Siouanist. But I think you, Bob, are of the Dhegihacentric sort! ;-) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 09:22:40 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:22:40 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370C905@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hooca?k. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix ni?- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not ni??e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I?m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Tue Sep 10 10:07:22 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:07:22 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <73567A65-1147-4708-B448-83223AE1B7E1@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave et al: It could have been borrowed on more than one occasion (we can never know whether M-I had it and lost it). Pam, I like the ?expectant? potential etymon of the Choctaw/Chickasaw form and it makes a lot of sense; after all IE ?nine? may be connected with ?new?. Bob, is the ?big? form in Dhegiha that you mention as coming from Spanish the everyday one? I ask because Joseph Casagrande pointed out that Comanche borrowed a Spanish word for ?good? (and Comanche may have got a ?bear? word from Dhegiha). Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa Sent: 10 September 2013 02:44 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Dave > I recall John Koontz mentioning some other forms to me ? items for ?cucumber? from French concombre, and also ttapuska ?student, teacher? which is shared by Dhegiha and Pawnee. I don?t know about ?hau? but Comanche ?aho? (hello) is supposed to come from Kiowa. Allan Taylor did a comprehensive "how" count at one point. I don't think he ever published results though. 'Cucumber' begins with kko the PSI root for 'gourd', so it may be a borrowing or it may be a coincidence again. 'Pig' is definitely from French. > Shankka also has reflexes in Western Muskogean (Choctaw and Chickasaw) Maybe. The word is ??kk?a?li and -ali is an ending all right. It is borrowed into Biloxi as ?kane I think. Note the Tutelo and Ofo terms. Tutelo has ?as??hka, so it is definitely in the shankka zone. Ofo k??tat??ka Sw k??ctat?cga ? nine; p. 325. Some words where ? is expected turn up with ?t instead. So this may contain some variant of shankkasomehow. The prefix with k mirrors Tutelo to an extent but the sound correspondences aren't quite right. So this peculiar term for '9' turns up in Chiwere, Dhegiha, Tutelo and maybe Ofo. There are partial look-alikes in Western Muskogean and Biloxi. So it's not just around the Great Lakes region in Siouan, but there's no trace in the Northwest of Siouan. Bob ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 11:44:48 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:44:48 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CABA@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Bob, Hooca?k grizzly bear is ma?a?co (definitely with a voiceless affricate) As for cow elk, I?m not aware of there being a specific word for a female elk, generally elk is hu?u?wa? - Iren The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 11:56:59 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:56:59 -0500 Subject: clusters in potential loan words In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FAD20@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Bob, you wrote: In Chiwere dw clusters are similarly suspect. And, as you know, these will turn up in Hochunk with a Dorsey?s Law vowel. Would this be cVw in Hooca?k? As in wica?wa?s ?big cat, squash?? Or reecawa ?belly button?? ...na?a?cawa ?ear?? Thanks, Iren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 12:27:58 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:27:58 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Irene: How is it that 2nd SG & Pl and 3rd SG & Pl are the same? Did you mean to write it that way, or is it a typo? From: Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:22 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hooca?k. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix ni?- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not ni??e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I?m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 10 12:40:10 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:40:10 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No, this is correct for the emphatic free standing personal pronouns, there is only a distinction between 1st & 2nd person vs. 3rd person, there is no distinction made in number. These are highly underspecified. Number distinctions are only made on the verb in Hooca?k never on nouns or pronouns. - Iren Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:27:58 -0500 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Irene: How is it that 2nd SG & Pl and 3rd SG & Pl are the same? Did you mean to write it that way, or is it a typo? From: Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:22 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hooca?k. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix ni?- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not ni??e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I?m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Tue Sep 10 14:10:58 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:10:58 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB226@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Bob, From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. I?m not sure I totally understand what we?re looking for here, though. Did you mean to say: ? You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. Or did you mean: ? You just don't find a lot of *blvC(C)V'. I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Also, aren?t ALL Ls in Kaw and Osage reflexes of GL? If not, where else do they come from? Anyway, here?s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I?ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ?across? and ?hawk? have it on the ?third? syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I?d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. grad?? - across; (e.g. cows cutting across a pasture, or a bolt going across between two doors, or a pin going through a hitch) gr?he-ro?-ro? - frequently; all the time gr?be - vomit gr?bo? - ten gr?bo?-hi?wi? - hundred gred?? - hawk; American sparrow hawk gr?ze - striped gr??e - speckled; spotted gr?? - sit (agr??, ragr??) gr?? - name-calling; (call someone a bad name) gr??ge - dive (e.g. into water) gr??-gro? - cuss; curse; call someone names gr??ri? - crazy gr???ka - red shouldered hawk gr???ka-q?r?-ego? - white tailed hawk gr??xe - musty (e.g. when you walk into a closet or a basement of an old house) gr?ba - all of it; all of a set; (e.g. all the furniture in this room. This refers to constrained inanimate sets only) Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of De Reuse, Willem Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:24 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics Thanks for the interesting comments, Bob. And thanks for your input, David. Yes, this is indeed what I also find. If Bob was correct about Lakota stress rules, then the numerous verbs with blu-, glu-, bla- gla-, would have stress on the first syllable, but they don't. I think I am not Eurocentric about my phonology, though. (After all, the first class in good ole American phonology I ever took, as a young wide-eyed European whippersnapper, was with you, Bob.) The Eurocentrics are the ones who gave us Minnesota for mnisota, etc. I admit to being a Lakotacentric sort of Siouanist. But I think you, Bob, are of the Dhegihacentric sort! ;-) Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual pattern; I'm working from memory here. And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. Bob ________________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Lakota phonetics Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's on the third? David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mckay020 at UMN.EDU Tue Sep 10 14:27:08 2013 From: mckay020 at UMN.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?Q8yjYcaedGUgTWHMgXph?=) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:27:08 -0500 Subject: Class in NA linguistics In-Reply-To: <004e01ceacc0$4c4d8490$e4e88db0$@net> Message-ID: Go datkan? I meant Hi Darla. Silly auto correct, I must have sent that from my phone, I text in Dakota everyday so it changed your name to "you're drinking it" -neil On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Darla Spencer wrote: > Neil,**** > > Thanks very much!**** > > Darla**** > > ** ** > > Darla Spencer, RPA**** > > 1526 Autumn Road**** > > Charleston, WV 25314**** > > (304) 561-4753**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] *On Behalf Of > *C?a?te Ma?za > *Sent:* Sunday, September 08, 2013 2:16 PM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Re: Class in NA linguistics**** > > ** ** > > Go Datkan. I am not aware of ant online native linguistics courses but > you could try Indiana University. They may be able to help you. > > -neil > > On Sunday, September 8, 2013, Darla Spencer > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am an archaeologist with an interest in learning more about Native > American linguistics. Would anyone know of a university that offers an > online course in this? I live in WV and there is nothing offered in the > area. > > Thanks, > > Darla Spencer > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > **** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Tue Sep 10 15:24:15 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:24:15 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was the one who was questioning the ?wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning ?wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of ?wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ?. Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. te/che ? buffalo inde/inje ? face ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) tade/taje ? wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: mase/ma?e ? metal ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) si/thi ? foot si/?i ? yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of ?s? where nowadays we have ? or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton?s entry of ?w?? (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear ?b?? around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. ? Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hooca?k perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don?t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/ja?a?, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Tue Sep 10 18:27:02 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:27:02 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369D8BB27C85@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: Hi Sky, ? Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ? ? ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. ? ? te/che ? buffalo ? inde/inje ? face ? ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) ? tade/taje ? wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn?t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. ? Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: ? ? mase/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? si/?i ? yellow ? Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ?. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: ? m?ze/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? zi/?i ? yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [?] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. ? All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: ? ? sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) ? nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) ? nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) ? In general, I think you?re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ?black? is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman?s name Mi-sebe, meaning ?The Dark of the Moon?. I?m sure your linguist friend is correct about ?thi-pi? meaning ?they live?, or rather ?they dwell?. I?ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ?house? or as the verb ?dwell?. ? Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? ? ? What do you guys think? ? Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hooc?k, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ?you? and ?we?, and in Hooc?k, ?I?, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ?we? and ?you?. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ?you?, ?we?, and perhaps ?I?. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it?s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the ?wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning ?wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of ?wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ?. Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. te/che ? buffalo inde/inje ? face ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) tade/taje ? wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: mase/ma?e ? metal ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) si/thi ? foot si/?i ? yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of ?s? where nowadays we have ? or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton?s entry of ?w?? (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear ?b?? around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. ? Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hooca?k perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don?t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/ja?a?, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Tue Sep 10 19:52:36 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:52:36 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370CC09@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > I can't really speak for Dakotan, but in Dhegiha my recollection of > words beginning with organic bl- (i.e. not 1sg conjugated verbs) accent > the initial syllable, Bloga, blaska, blekka, and dozens of others. You > just don't find a lot of *blVC(C)v'. I'm not as certain about reflexes > of GL as they all lose their G in Osage and Kaw. I'm not counting forms > with prefixes like wanblAke in Dakota altho' it matches my analysis. I > think it might be an interesting experiment to do a dictionary count in > both Dakotan and Dhegiha. Maybe I'm totally wrong about the accentual > pattern; I'm working from memory here. > > And we're gonna HAVE to get you away from that antiquated email program you use and into Unicode, Dude. > > Bob > ________________________________________ > From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of ROOD DAVID S [david.rood at COLORADO.EDU] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:15 PM > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > Subject: Lakota phonetics > > Bob, this time I think you're wrong for synchronic Lakota, and Willem is > right. There are hundreds of words which, if bl counted as a whole > syllable, would have to be considered to be stessed on the third syllable. > bluhA, blatkE, wanblAke, blokEtu.... ditto for gl. (My email doesn't do > accent marks.)That doesn't make sense: stress is on the first or second > syllable unless one of those syllables begins with bl, in which case it's > on the third? > > > David S. Rood > Dept. of Linguistics > Univ. of Colorado > 295 UCB > Boulder, CO 80309-0295 > USA > rood at colorado.edu > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: > >> I think you'd be wrong. By accent placement rules and by morphological analysis the GL and BL clusters count as two syllables. The little phonetic tics are immaterial. Fortunately or unfortunately the Gs all go back to full syllables, mostly KI while the Bs of the BL clusters all go back to WA or WI. All were morphemes also. Ordinarily the prehistory of these things might not matter, but the accent rules still seem to be able to treat the Gs and Bs as morae for purposes of assigning stress synchronically. This is especially true of Hochunk which, assuming Ken Miner was right, is a mora counting language. I'm guessing that Dakotan is too. >> ________________________________ >> >>> Phonetically, there is a schwa in there. But phonologically, I would count glV- as one syllable. >> >> Actually, that's backwards. Phonetically BLV and GLV may form single syllables but phonologically they count as two for the reasons cited above. \ >> >> It gets worse, of course. If the structure is CVglV the syllabification rules for Siouan languages assign the /g/ phonetically to the second syllable along with the initial member of all other CC clusters. I remember telling an Australian linguist that and being laughed at because he believed that syllable boundaries could be derived from a "universal." It's all very messy, but it's a fact that CL clusters can behave as two syllables for various phonological purposes and perhaps as single syllables for yet other purposes. >> >> Bob >> > > From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Tue Sep 10 21:05:45 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:05:45 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the info! I am slowly starting to understand many of the linguistic hows and whys of these things and explanations like yours really help ?. I?ve heard ?metal? as both ?mase? with an ?s? (heard that one the other day) as well as ?mazhe? (you see that ?zh? spelling often around here nowadays when it is more of the French ?j? sound rather than ?z? as in zebra). I made a mistake with the Ponca ?yellow.? I should have put down ?zi? rather than ?si.? I should know better?I know a little boy named Te Nuga Zi ?. To my immediate knowledge, I?ve only seen ?chi? to indicate ?live? in names such as ?Nut?achi? (Missouria ? roughly ?those who live at the mouth of a river?) and Ahachikithage (Killer of People who Live on a Ridge). That last name threw me for a loop for quite a while when I first saw it in a treaty that translated ?one who strikes the Little Osages? (1830 treaty) and then as ?Missouri Chief? (1854 treaty). Those spellings of his name have the ?s? rather than the ?th? like we are talking about. For a long time I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out how the word ?Osage? was in that name. The ?kithage? was easy enough to extract but I couldn?t make sense of the rest of it. Then I found this name in Whitman?s The Oto (page 92) and then all became clear (ahe ? hill; (might be the locative ?a-? here attached to the following ?chi? to make the change from the ?e? in ?ahe? to an ?a? sound (IE ?achi? (live on)) chi ? live; kithage ? fight/strike/kill). So now it is my guess that those people on the ridge he killed were Osages ?. Merrill recorded his name but didn?t translate it (he had it as ?Hlcekeglka?). Thankfully Dorsey did, though. But beyond those two names, I can?t think of any other instances off the top of my head where ?chi? is used specifically as ?live.? I?m going to keep digging for the ?wi (we-dual) form and see what I come up with. That use of ?-pi? really does suggest to me that it may just be out there in some way but as you said, it just may not have been picked up. Time will tell though! ? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:27 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Sky, ? Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ? ? ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. ? ? te/che ? buffalo ? inde/inje ? face ? ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) ? tade/taje ? wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn?t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. ? Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: ? ? mase/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? si/?i ? yellow ? Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ?. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: ? m?ze/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? zi/?i ? yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [?] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. ? All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: ? ? sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) ? nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) ? nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) ? In general, I think you?re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ?black? is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman?s name Mi-sebe, meaning ?The Dark of the Moon?. I?m sure your linguist friend is correct about ?thi-pi? meaning ?they live?, or rather ?they dwell?. I?ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ?house? or as the verb ?dwell?. ? Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? ? ? What do you guys think? ? Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hooc?k, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ?you? and ?we?, and in Hooc?k, ?I?, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ?we? and ?you?. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ?you?, ?we?, and perhaps ?I?. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it?s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the ?wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning ?wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of ?wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ?. Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. te/che ? buffalo inde/inje ? face ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) tade/taje ? wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: mase/ma?e ? metal ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) si/thi ? foot si/?i ? yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of ?s? where nowadays we have ? or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton?s entry of ?w?? (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear ?b?? around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. ? Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hooca?k perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don?t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/ja?a?, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Tue Sep 10 21:54:34 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:54:34 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, That?s what happened in Jiwere : miNre , miN?e 1st person independent Pronoun, rire, ri?e 2nd person, are ?3rd person?? I would hear interesting English syntax sometimes using pronouns also, in an appositive manner: ?Me, I don?t know about X?, or conversely ?I don?t know, me.? I?m sorry ? I would add more on the ?wi issue, but it?s time to head home, and my brain has accordingly shut off for the day. Best, Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hooca?k. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix ni?- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not ni??e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I?m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren ________________________________ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob ________________________________ As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). 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 rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 10 23:33:16 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:16 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. Message-ID: > From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. Actually, it's not a problem in Osage and Kaw. Initial /l/ simply subs for original /gl/. The real problem with initial /gl/ is that it is mostly inflectional, primarily possessive, and, as such, does not undergo the phonological restructuring that /bl/ does. In other words, /gl/ is supported by active morphophonemic alternations in all the languages. That doesn't happen with /bl/ or its nasal counterparts except in inflected 1st person sg. verb forms. I'm interested primarily in the cases of real restructuring where there is no support from phonological alternation. I?m not sure I totally understand what we?re looking for here, though. I?m saying that, because initial BL (along with nasalized bn-, mn-) is all that is left of an initial disyllable, *wvlv? (where v is any vowel), we can?t expect to find many modern lexemes with the accentual pattern blvCv?. This is because, in the older disyllable, accent would have become stranded on the initial syllable vowel after the first vowel in the word underwent syncope, i.e., dropped out. To find the pattern blvCv? would imply a proto-Siouan accent pattern cvcvcv? unless we posit massive accent shift. > I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Primordial DIsyllables. And, yes, you're exactly right about the "underlying second syllable rather than the third." > Anyway, here?s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I?ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ?across? and ?hawk? have it on the ?third? syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I?d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Kansa Of approx. 22 lexemes in initial bl- all accent the initial syllable except for reduplicanda, which always accent the 2nd duplicated syllable. Osage Of 10 lexemes with initial br- all 10 accent the initial syllable. (Quintero). Quapaw approx. 18 lexemes in bd-/bn-. Only one lexeme, bdas? ?shout, cry out?, plus a few reduplicanda, accent the 2nd syllable. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ?water?. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem?s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 00:28:37 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:28:37 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D22B@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Here you go. I count about 10 or 11 distinct words that are at least three primordial syllables long. All of them take their accent on the first second syllable, which confirms your pattern. Now I?m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would?correct me if I?m mistaken), wouldn?t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? Best, Rory br?ra - spread-out br?ska - flat br?e-t?e - ante (the money you put up) br?e-t?e-u?gihi - I broke even (e.g. in a card game); I won back what I ante'd br?exe - pelican (American white pelican) br?kka - thin br?kka-?i?ga - silver half dime br?ppe - powder (e.g. powdered milk or flour) br??ka - plump; (fat and round, like a tomato that is wider than it is tall. You see some people who have this shape too.) br??ra - flaps that open and close br?? - smell; odor; (can be either stinky or nice) br??xe - not big; real branchy; full; leafy br??ze - petite; slender; small br?ga - all of them; all of it; everything; everyone; (e.g. everything in this room. This can be for animate beings or inanimate objects, and is not strictly pinned down to an exclusive set); (spread out round and flat) From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > From the Omaha side, I could probably help with the GL reflexes, as they stay GL in Omaha and Ponka. Actually, it's not a problem in Osage and Kaw. Initial /l/ simply subs for original /gl/. The real problem with initial /gl/ is that it is mostly inflectional, primarily possessive, and, as such, does not undergo the phonological restructuring that /bl/ does. In other words, /gl/ is supported by active morphophonemic alternations in all the languages. That doesn't happen with /bl/ or its nasal counterparts except in inflected 1st person sg. verb forms. I'm interested primarily in the cases of real restructuring where there is no support from phonological alternation. I?m not sure I totally understand what we?re looking for here, though. I?m saying that, because initial BL (along with nasalized bn-, mn-) is all that is left of an initial disyllable, *wvlv? (where v is any vowel), we can?t expect to find many modern lexemes with the accentual pattern blvCv?. This is because, in the older disyllable, accent would have become stranded on the initial syllable vowel after the first vowel in the word underwent syncope, i.e., dropped out. To find the pattern blvCv? would imply a proto-Siouan accent pattern cvcvcv? unless we posit massive accent shift. > I thought the idea was that *bl and *gl represent primordial syllables, so that if they are word-initial the accent should be on the vowel immediately following them, i.e. the underlying second syllable rather than the third. Primordial DIsyllables. And, yes, you're exactly right about the "underlying second syllable rather than the third." > Anyway, here?s a list of *gl (gr-) initial words from the dictionary I?ve been working on. Most have the accent on the following vowel, but two of them, ?across? and ?hawk? have it on the ?third? syllable. Discounting variants of the same root and two that have no further syllables, I?d say there are about 9 or 10 that take the accent immediately following initial *gl. Thanks for looking at the *GL set. I concentrated on the BL set in 4 languages and found almost exactly what I said last evening. If you have a chance to look at the BDH pattern in Omaha, it would be very welcome. Here are the results from the other languages: Kansa Of approx. 22 lexemes in initial bl- all accent the initial syllable except for reduplicanda, which always accent the 2nd duplicated syllable. Osage Of 10 lexemes with initial br- all 10 accent the initial syllable. (Quintero). Quapaw approx. 18 lexemes in bd-/bn-. Only one lexeme, bdas? ?shout, cry out?, plus a few reduplicanda, accent the 2nd syllable. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ?water?. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem?s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Wed Sep 11 02:43:00 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 02:43:00 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D22B@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ?water?. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem?s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Wed Sep 11 08:42:20 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 03:42:20 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Jill, that's good to know! Best, Iren Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:54:34 +0000 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, That?s what happened in Jiwere : miNre , miN?e 1st person independent Pronoun, rire, ri?e 2nd person, are ?3rd person?? I would hear interesting English syntax sometimes using pronouns also, in an appositive manner: ?Me, I don?t know about X?, or conversely ?I don?t know, me.? I?m sorry ? I would add more on the ?wi issue, but it?s time to head home, and my brain has accordingly shut off for the day. Best, Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:23 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Bob, oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hooca?k. They are: 1st SG & PL nee 2nd SG & PL nee 3rd SG & PL ee Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix ni?- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not ni??e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). I?m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives? Best, Iren Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Iren, Yes, ni?i? is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha wi-. That's not the ni? I'm talking about. We corresponded about this a couple of months ago. In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a ni?e that is translated simply 'I'. Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to ?e as a prefix. I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form. Bob As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hooca?k as such. I remember harami?he (or haramehi) ?week, (Christian) cross? was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think that would be an interesting project.. As for what was written about ni?- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and ni?-. (In the past this has been described as being long ni?i?-, but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn?t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year?s conference in the presentation about causatives, only there it was theorized that the ni?- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here? Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hooca?k paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this: S/A (subjects, actor) 1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi du / 1 incl: hi?- / hi?-... -wi 2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi 3 SG / PL: [zero] / -ire I hope this helps. Best, Iren > This is the first I've heard that Hochunk n? for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan? Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-. It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-. In Dhegiha *a-. There is no trace of any 1st person ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago). 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 rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 11 15:40:50 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:40:50 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <82b28e0a76b843e2bda710ff078d3ec6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > Now I?m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would?correct me if I?m mistaken), wouldn?t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? I'm not saying anything about "perception" at all. This is about "competence", not "performance", to quote Chomsky. CL-initial words get accent on the first syllable because there used to be a vowel where just the B or G is now. Accent is still assigned on that basis. (And I'm leaving aside the whole problem of vowel length here.) If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. Exactly. But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? Because it behaves like a second syllable with regard to accent. Don't get confused about the differences between phonetics and phonology. Morphophonology can still be affected by things that happened a couple of thousand years ago. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 20:58:12 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:58:12 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D590@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? > Now I'm wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would-correct me if I'm mistaken), wouldn't that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. ? Let me try re-asking that question more concretely. Without loss of generality, let's take the *BL cluster. First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we're on the same page, and you've shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don't see how the "BL syllable" can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv 3. This can't happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven't been able to think of, can you describe what that is? Thanks, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 11 23:02:33 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:02:33 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <9f9c6c911f074ce8a2b3f7d8bbbd7831@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Yes. That's standard Siouan historical phonology that everybody agrees on. > Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we?re on the same page, and you?ve shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. That's unless the initial syllable V is long, in which case it gets the accent. But that's not applicable in these instances because if the initial syllable had been long it wouldn't have undergone syncope. > Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv No, the *wa- or animate *wi- prefixes only really occurred word-initially as far as I know,(or as far as any of us has analyzed, I think). So your scenario maybe didn't really occur. > If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don?t see how the ?BL syllable? can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: > 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv Can only happen under the Winnebago accent shift. Other Siouan languages don't seem to allow it with the possible exception of Dorsey's really screwed up accentual patterns in Biloxi. In any event, there are no know cases. > 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv If the 1st syllable was long it always had the accent (without having to posit a shift). > 3. This can?t happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Yes, I think that's it. You're right out on the cutting edge of reconstructing proto-Siouan phonology here, and I don't think we have any cases of your vulnerable syllable structure to try to explain. As far as anyone has gotten there weren't instances of derivational *wa/wi that had prefixes. Locative prefixes, *ii-/aa-/o- were originally postpositions on preceding NPs that were later reanalyzed as verb prefixes (as I recall Randy has instances of them still functioning that way in Crow.) 1st singular *wa + /r/ clusters are different in that they are supported by active morphophonemic alternations all along, but they behave the same way until the patient and locative enclitics became prefixes creating sequences such as you describe above. By that time the BL 1st sing. clusters were established and didn't revert to /wa-r/ sequences. The GL clusters have a more complex history since they interact with all the damned KI morphemes and generally (always??) arise through inflection rather than derivation. I don't have time to even think about than can of worms. > Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven?t been able to think of, can you describe what that is? If you can't think of it, I'm sure I haven't. I think the only thing you have left out of the discussion of this is the complexity of inflection vs. derivation, and that's better left for the next generation of historical Siouanists, if there is one. Suffice it to say that there ARE additional problems with initial syllable unaccented short vowel syncope. It only seems to have happened with *wV- syllables. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Wed Sep 11 23:35:26 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:35:26 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D9D8@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Bob! That answers my question very well. In fact, I'm going to want to keep it around for reference while I try to absorb all that. :) Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:03 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > First, I think the *BL cluster is underlyingly a syncopation of the first syllable of *wv-rv in Proto-Siouan, correct? So *wv-rv => *w-rv => *BLv ? Yes. That's standard Siouan historical phonology that everybody agrees on. > Next, I assume Proto-Siouan had second syllable accent. Then *wv-rv-cv is accented *wv-rV-cv. This syncopates to *w-rV-cv => *BLV-cv, with accent on the vowel immediately following L, aka *r, where it always was. Here, I think we're on the same page, and you've shown good evidence from Dhegiha to support this. That's unless the initial syllable V is long, in which case it gets the accent. But that's not applicable in these instances because if the initial syllable had been long it wouldn't have undergone syncope. > Now what happens when we take the same sequence and add a preceding syllable: *cv-wv-rv-cv? By second syllable accent, the vowel between *w and *r gets the accent: *cv-wV-rv-cv No, the *wa- or animate *wi- prefixes only really occurred word-initially as far as I know,(or as far as any of us has analyzed, I think). So your scenario maybe didn't really occur. > If the second syllable with the accent is syncopated out: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rv-cv => *cv-BLv-cv, I don't see how the "BL syllable" can get the accent, because there is no vowel there to accent. I can think of just three possibilities here: > 1. Accent shifts to the morphophonological third syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cv-w-rV-cv => *cv-BLV-cv Can only happen under the Winnebago accent shift. Other Siouan languages don't seem to allow it with the possible exception of Dorsey's really screwed up accentual patterns in Biloxi. In any event, there are no know cases. > 2. Accent shifts to the first syllable: *cv-wV-rv-cv => *cV-w-rv-cv => *cV-BLv-cv If the 1st syllable was long it always had the accent (without having to posit a shift). > 3. This can't happen, because if the intervening syllable is accented, syncopation does not occur. Yes, I think that's it. You're right out on the cutting edge of reconstructing proto-Siouan phonology here, and I don't think we have any cases of your vulnerable syllable structure to try to explain. As far as anyone has gotten there weren't instances of derivational *wa/wi that had prefixes. Locative prefixes, *ii-/aa-/o- were originally postpositions on preceding NPs that were later reanalyzed as verb prefixes (as I recall Randy has instances of them still functioning that way in Crow.) 1st singular *wa + /r/ clusters are different in that they are supported by active morphophonemic alternations all along, but they behave the same way until the patient and locative enclitics became prefixes creating sequences such as you describe above. By that time the BL 1st sing. clusters were established and didn't revert to /wa-r/ sequences. The GL clusters have a more complex history since they interact with all the damned KI morphemes and generally (always??) arise through inflection rather than derivation. I don't have time to even think about than can of worms. > Do you have a sense of which of these three possibilities should happen in the *cv-wV-rv-cv case? Or if the outcome is something else that I haven't been able to think of, can you describe what that is? If you can't think of it, I'm sure I haven't. I think the only thing you have left out of the discussion of this is the complexity of inflection vs. derivation, and that's better left for the next generation of historical Siouanists, if there is one. Suffice it to say that there ARE additional problems with initial syllable unaccented short vowel syncope. It only seems to have happened with *wV- syllables. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Thu Sep 12 02:26:04 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:26:04 -0600 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370D590@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Now you've got me confused, Bob. This started with miyoglas'in being either four or five syllables, you opting for 5, Willem, me and Pam opting for four. Now you seem to be saying the gl and bl are syllables phonologically but not phonetically, because there is no phonological schwah between b or g and l, but because there used to be a vowel there, we still have to count as if the schwah were a real vowel? I understand the argument that word-initial bl and gl with accent on the vowel after them derive from words that used to have two syllables, stressed on the second. That is certainly one source for words with first-syllable stress. But as soon as the unaccented vowel disappears, doesn't it stay disappeared both phonetically and phonologically? Aren't you confusing diachrony with synchronic phonology? I don't see how you can claim that miyoglas'in has five syllables synchronically. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: >> Now I?m wondering what your model is for the accent when the *GL or *BL is preceded by a syllable. Second syllable accent would land on a squeezed out schwa, which presumably nobody wants to accent. If the accent then jumps to the primordial third syllable (as I think it would?correct me if I?m mistaken), wouldn?t that support the view that speakers at that point consider primordial third syllable to be synchronic second syllable? > > There is no "schwa" there phonologically. That's confusing phonology with phonetics. So of course the GL or BL syllable gets accent if there's another prefix. But what I'm saying is that the CL syllable gets the accent anyway. > > Also, granted that most *GL and *BL initial words take their accent on the primordial second syllable immediately following these clusters, how does that show that speakers still perceive the sequence as two syllables? > > I'm not saying anything about "perception" at all. This is about "competence", not "performance", to quote Chomsky. CL-initial words get accent on the first syllable because there used to be a vowel where just the B or G is now. Accent is still assigned on that basis. (And I'm leaving aside the whole problem of vowel length here.) > > If the accent started out on the second syllable, and the vowel of the first syllable goes away by syncope, we continue accenting the same vowel we always have. > > Exactly. > > But why should that mean that synchronically we still consider it to be second syllable rather than first syllable? > > Because it behaves like a second syllable with regard to accent. Don't get confused about the differences between phonetics and phonology. Morphophonology can still be affected by things that happened a couple of thousand years ago. > > Bob > > From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Thu Sep 12 14:36:37 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:36:37 -0500 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <001e01ceadcb$a34b7200$e9e25600$@com> Message-ID: I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, not *?a*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Thu Sep 12 16:27:17 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:27:17 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369D8BB28213@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, not *?a*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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 rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 17:34:42 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:34:42 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning 'nine', which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn't find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me "nanye" (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to "nanyi" (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of "sanke" they had "nanye." They didn't miss a beat either. I haven't come across this term before. I don't know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English "nine." I'm not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn't a "let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words" sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I'm going to have to see about working with this individual more :). Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual "sanke." I can't remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I'll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it'll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a*nka, not *?a*nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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 pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Sep 12 18:00:23 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (david costa) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Thu Sep 12 18:08:20 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:08:20 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Indeed I seem to recall that some (Albert Gatschet?) said that they knew of no Native North American language where ?nine? was a single morpheme. (I think someone adduced this principle as evidence that the Taensa material was a fake.) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:00 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn?t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me ?nanye? (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to ?nanyi? (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of ?sanke? they had ?nanye.? They didn?t miss a beat either. I haven?t come across this term before. I don?t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English ?nine.? I?m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn?t a ?let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words? sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I?m going to have to see about working with this individual more ?. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual ?sanke.? I can?t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I?ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it?ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Sep 12 18:28:15 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (david costa) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:28:15 -0700 Subject: Borrowings. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Thu Sep 12 18:34:46 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:34:46 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <2974692.1379010495410.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Well, that?s Albert Gatschet for you ? generalising on too few data. Am I right in thinking that some Illinois sources have a bimorphemic form for 8 in addition to the Ohio Valley Siouan one? As to numerals, John Koontz said that Caddo for ?one? was plausibly from a Dhegiha form. From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:28 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Well, "nine" is monomorphemic in several Algonquian languages -- in some Ojibwe dialects, it's zhaang, in most Potawatomi dialects it's zhak, and in Kickapoo it's saaka. It may not be certain where that word comes from, but it's definitely monomorphemic. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Grant Sent: Sep 12, 2013 11:08 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Indeed I seem to recall that some (Albert Gatschet?) said that they knew of no Native North American language where ?nine? was a single morpheme. (I think someone adduced this principle as evidence that the Taensa material was a fake.) Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: 12 September 2013 19:00 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn?t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me ?nanye? (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to ?nanyi? (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of ?sanke? they had ?nanye.? They didn?t miss a beat either. I haven?t come across this term before. I don?t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English ?nine.? I?m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn?t a ?let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words? sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I?m going to have to see about working with this individual more ?. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual ?sanke.? I can?t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I?ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it?ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 18:58:33 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:58:33 +0000 Subject: Borrowings. In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dave, I agree. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek from the point of view of the hapless speaker trying to rattle off a big number with lots of nines in it, and I was picturing a generation of bright young Otoes who decided to abbreviate. From the perspective of North American languages generally, I imagine the Dakotan terms are par for the course. But what a nice thread that sparked! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of david costa Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:00 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn?t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me ?nanye? (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to ?nanyi? (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of ?sanke? they had ?nanye.? They didn?t miss a beat either. I haven?t come across this term before. I don?t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English ?nine.? I?m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn?t a ?let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words? sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I?m going to have to see about working with this individual more ?. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual ?sanke.? I can?t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I?ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it?ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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 rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 18:59:45 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:59:45 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Message-ID: > Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) > The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. Interesting contribution. I hope someone figures it out. By the way, could I make a plea for us to try to make the subject line of our postings accurate and up-to-date? I'm more guilty than most of leaving the subject lines intact when the topic shifts, but if our search mechanism looks primarily at subject lines when looking for pertinent information, we're not doing future linguists any favor retaining old information in the headings. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG Thu Sep 12 19:10:50 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:10:50 +0200 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370DEF9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively Bob, I wonder if the etymology is rather nap? ?hand? (or perhaps naps? ?finger?) and ??k?ala and yu?k?/wa?k? ?to lie?. Note that nap?h?ka ?palm? has aspirated ?h while nap??yu?ka has a plain one. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 19:56:25 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:56:25 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <007401ceafeb$cb80bbf0$628233d0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Good point. I wasn't aware of the aspiration difference. I do think the etymology relates to nap? ?hand? in any event. Aspirated napchoka has to be a contraction of napV and choka because otherwise the pch cluster wouldn't be possible. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively Bob, I wonder if the etymology is rather nap? ?hand? (or perhaps naps? ?finger?) and ??k?ala and yu?k?/wa?k? ?to lie?. Note that nap?h?ka ?palm? has aspirated ?h while nap??yu?ka has a plain one. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:22:21 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:22:21 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370DEF9@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:24:08 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:24:08 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. Message-ID: > Now you've got me confused, Bob. This started with miyoglas'in being either four or five syllables, you opting for 5, Willem, me and Pam opting for four. Now you seem to be saying the gl and bl are syllables phonologically but not phonetically, because there is no phonological schwah between b or g and l, but because there used to be a vowel there, we still have to count as if the schwah were a real vowel? Uh, no, we're not counting schwas as anything at all. They should never have gotten into the discussion at all. They're a red herring from day two of any introductory Dakota class. > I understand the argument that word-initial bl and gl with accent on the vowel after them derive from words that used to have two syllables, stressed on the second. Then you?re not confused, David. You understand the whole argument. > That is certainly one source for words with first-syllable stress. But as soon as the unaccented vowel disappears, doesn't it stay disappeared both phonetically and phonologically? No, B alternates with wa- ?absolutive? and wa- ?1st sg.agent? (and in some languages, wi-?animate absolutive?) and the G alternates with ki- ?possessive? and 'vertitive'. > Aren't you confusing diachrony with synchronic phonology? No, I think that argument was settled in the 1960s in papers like Larry Hyman?s ?How Abstract is Phonology?? and similar such. James Harris virtually reconstructed proto-Indo-European in order to explain synchronic Spanish phonology. These trends come and go, but I?m sure you?ve taught and understand them just as I have. > I don't see how you can claim that miyoglas'in has five syllables synchronically. Oh, I could justify the 4 syllable solution by simply asking any undergraduate student how many syllables the word has. But if Jan is right, and ?glas'i? is derived from ?kas'i?, then the G of glas'i? is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. From earlier: ?The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself? (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ?vertitive?, ?reflexive? or ?possessive? here? I guess it doesn?t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Perhaps this clarifies my point of view. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:33:46 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:33:46 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <1f5b83a7ba10477fa1459c3fefea92c6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. ? I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 20:48:31 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:48:31 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E04A@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Greer-J at MSSU.EDU Thu Sep 12 21:51:20 2013 From: Greer-J at MSSU.EDU (Greer, Jill) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:51:20 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <1534932c10b94e939f5c44fa598fd4b6@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: It does work for ?sit? - that?s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi? ?I?m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited ? I?m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it?s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it?s a REAL stretch, but linking up ?sitting? in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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 rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Thu Sep 12 23:43:29 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:43:29 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E012@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? But if Jan is right, and ?glas'i? is derived from ?kas'i?, then the G of glas'i? is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. From earlier: ?The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself? (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ?vertitive?, ?reflexive? or ?possessive? here? I guess it doesn?t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Okay, just to throw one more monkey-wrench into this discussion... I believe something else has happened here, external to a simple historical development of Proto-Siouan phonology. The *ki- prefix that goes to our G is what should make the verb vertitive, reflexive or possessive. But the GL cluster comes from the sequence *ki + *r-, where *r- is most often the beginning of either *re, ?go?, or of the instrumental prefixes *ru- ?by hand? or *ra- ?by mouth: *ki-ru- => *kru- => GLu-, *ki-ra- => *kra- => GLa-. In this case though, the instrumental prefix of the base verb is *ka-, ?by force?. Sticking vertitive *ki- in front of that should get *ki-ka- => *k-ka- => *kka- (?). But in Omaha at least, and apparently in Dakotan as well, it doesn?t come out that way. Rather, the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of a *ka- verb is GLa-, just the same as for a *ra- verb. I was astonished to learn that in Omaha a few years ago, but internalized it well enough that I didn?t think twice about declaring ?kas?i? to be the base verb of vertitive ?glas?i?. In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn?t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **?yas?i?. The vertitive form of this would be ?glas?i?, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy?glas?i?. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy?glas?i? which is based on ?kas?i?. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miy?glas?i?, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 00:44:37 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:44:37 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E012@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: ? From earlier: ?The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself? (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ?vertitive?, ?reflexive? or ?possessive? here? I guess it doesn?t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Bob- Actually, I think I?m likely the one responsible for the above quote. ?Vertitive? is still a fairly new term for me. I puzzled for a while as to which term would be best to use in that case, and hit on that one, thinking along the lines of ?self-look?, or ?betake oneself looking?, or perhaps ?back-look?. I probably should have cast it as ?ogle oneself?, which would have made it reflexive. Anyway, please don?t blame the Dakotanists for my questionable choice of linguistic terminology! Best, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 01:11:28 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:11:28 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I?m going to cover a few points here. Please bear with me since I?m not at the office at the moment so I am going from memory. 1) First off, Jill apologized for not being able to use eng here. If it is the standard practice to use a linguistic alphabet in this list, then I?ll work on doing so. I?d asked Jill for some advice while we were in D.C. on which alphabet to use and she recommended the APA. I?ve been meaning to start recording Otoe-Missouria language information in that system so I might as well start getting used to it. I?ll be honest and admit that I really don?t know where to begin beyond reading what Wikipedia has to say about it. As I understand it, there is some wiggle-room to assign phonemes to characters so long as you maintain a ?key?. I don?t know that I?d want to tweak an established system though. Besides, I am still getting used to the terminology used in this list like palatalization, philatelist, and monosodium glutamate. Any advice in this area would be greatly appreciated J. 2) The idea of ?na?e? (<--- my first attempt at the APA!) is a fascinating one to indicate ?sit? with respect to how the one finger is kept down to indicate nine. I?ll keep an eye out for anything along these lines. The mention of ?nanye? possibly being a dialectal variant of ?na?e? would definitely fit here. I used to think that ??e (I hope that?s appropriate use of the APA) was Ioway and ??e was Otoe-Missouria (as illustrated in the 1977 Otoe-Iowa Language Book I that was mentioned) and what little crossover I saw Ichalked up to the two tribes being in contact with one another. But the longer I?ve worked here, the more I?ve begun to challenge that assumption. More and more tribal members are coming forward with terms like ?su?e? (horse) rather than ?su?e?, ?wa?e? (man) rather than ?wa?e?, or the slightly different ?xa?e? (big) rather than ?xanje? (I used to think that last comparison was the be-all-end-all telltale sign of what was Ioway and what was Otoe-Missouria.). These same tribal members are adamant about not having any Ioway ancestry and/or little to no contact with them (would be hard to verify that claim, I would imagine). But still, it is enough to get my attention. Then I came across information in An Account of an Expedition from Pittsburg to the Rocky Mountains (James) that mentioned Otoe and Ioway languages being more similar to each other and with Missouria being the oddball (page 65). Missouria is described as being more nasal. With that thought in mind, I?ve often idly wondered if ??e was perhaps Otoe and Ioway and ??e (which seems more ?nasal? to me) was maybe Missouria and that perhaps since possibly the largest contributor of modern Otoe-Missouria language information (Truman Dailey) claimed Missouria, perhaps this might be why we see ??e so much in modern Otoe-Missouria material. This is just idle speculation on my part. Especially since this same source also mentions that by this date, Missouria children were starting to use the Otoe dialect. Not to mention there are plenty of representations of ??? in older documentation. But it does explain the largely absent (but not totally, obviously) ??? from Ioway. Still, this is the first documentation I?ve come across that actually describes a specific difference between Otoe and Missouria. The other sources I?ve read simply say they are the same language but slightly different. It also mentions the terms for ?friend? being In-ta-ro and In-ta-ra coming from Otoe and Ioway respectively. I don?t remember everything from the page. I?ll get the information from work tomorrow and email a copy of that page for those who are interested. 3) Going to respond to the appropriate email for a bit of info on bl/br/gl/gr J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 4:51 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ?sit? - that?s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi? ?I?m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited ? I?m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it?s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it?s a REAL stretch, but linking up ?sitting? in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. ? I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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 WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:20:59 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:20:59 +0000 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary Message-ID: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbec1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mithun at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:29:00 2013 From: mithun at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (Marianne Mithun) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:29:00 -0700 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB515@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Oh dear, how sad. Thanks for letting us know, Willem. Marianne --On Friday, September 13, 2013 1:20 AM +0000 "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: > > http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbe > c1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 01:32:18 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:32:18 -0500 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <28442938f998491a99a5fef568779d29@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I?ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it J. I first noticed the idea of what I thought was one syllable like ?gre? actually being something like ?guh-lay? (to use the spelling that Wistrand-Robinson used in her Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I (1977) to describe the pronunciation for ?hawk?). I didn?t think too much about it at the time. I noticed it but didn?t worry about it. And when I help others learn Otoe-Missouria, I don?t bother with splitting it up and just call ?gre? one syllable since I don?t want to over-complicate things for learners. Back on topic? I noticed this a while ago but couldn?t make sense of it. Then I remembered how Wistrand-Robinson separated those syllables. Currently our spellings for 8 and 10 are: grerabri ? eight (sometimes that final ?i? is nasalized) grebr? ? ten But Hamilton has in his An Ioway Grammar on page 26: kr?-ra-ba-ne ? eight kr?-pa-na ? ten At first I couldn?t figure out what the extra syllables were doing on there. What did they mean? Then I realized that ?bri? was simply ?ba-ne? pronounced quickly and so was ?br? (pa-na). This leads me to think that these two distinct syllables were at one time individually pronounced. The reason I say this is because there is a clue in those words with at the beginning with ?kr.? Hamilton doesn?t split ?kr? into two syllables. I would assume that if they were enunciated separately, he would have done so like he did at the ends of the words. So it would appear that we had two syllables in the past which are now ?one? (though still technically two if I am understanding these emails correctly). I should also mention that Hamilton conjugates the heck out of ?grahi? (love) throughout that book without ever separating the ?gr.? Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into ?one? that some of you have mentioned? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 6:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. ? But if Jan is right, and ?glas'i? is derived from ?kas'i?, then the G of glas'i? is underlying ki-, and the extra underlying syllable. Thus, the five underlying synchronic phonological syllables. One way or another our phonology (morphophonolgy) has to account for the b/w and the g/k allomorphy, and either the verb stems or the prefixes, or both, show alternations in all these cases. >From earlier: ?The term is pretty clearly based on the verb ?kas(?)i?, ?to look into?. In its vertitive form ?glasi?, it should mean ?to look into at oneself? (probably into water) Forgive my lack of knowledge of Dakota, but do we mean ?vertitive?, ?reflexive? or ?possessive? here? I guess it doesn?t matter to our discussion, since the G- will alternate with a full syllable in any of those cases. Okay, just to throw one more monkey-wrench into this discussion... I believe something else has happened here, external to a simple historical development of Proto-Siouan phonology. The *ki- prefix that goes to our G is what should make the verb vertitive, reflexive or possessive. But the GL cluster comes from the sequence *ki + *r-, where *r- is most often the beginning of either *re, ?go?, or of the instrumental prefixes *ru- ?by hand? or *ra- ?by mouth: *ki-ru- => *kru- => GLu-, *ki-ra- => *kra- => GLa-. In this case though, the instrumental prefix of the base verb is *ka-, ?by force?. Sticking vertitive *ki- in front of that should get *ki-ka- => *k-ka- => *kka- (?). But in Omaha at least, and apparently in Dakotan as well, it doesn?t come out that way. Rather, the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of a *ka- verb is GLa-, just the same as for a *ra- verb. I was astonished to learn that in Omaha a few years ago, but internalized it well enough that I didn?t think twice about declaring ?kas?i? to be the base verb of vertitive ?glas?i?. In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn?t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **?yas?i?. The vertitive form of this would be ?glas?i?, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy?glas?i?. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy?glas?i? which is based on ?kas?i?. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miy?glas?i?, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From STrechter at CSUCHICO.EDU Fri Sep 13 01:44:02 2013 From: STrechter at CSUCHICO.EDU (Trechter, Sara) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:44:02 -0700 Subject: Alyce Spotted Bear Obituary In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB515@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Alyce was a formidable soul and intellect. Again, thanks for posting, Willem. On Sep 12, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "De Reuse, Willem" > wrote: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/obituaries/alyce-spotted-bear/article_fbec1eb2-069c-11e3-9d7a-0019bb2963f4.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 03:15:03 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 03:15:03 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. In-Reply-To: <002901ceb021$15df7b20$419e7160$@com> Message-ID: ? Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into ?one? that some of you have mentioned? Actually, I think the two syllables mashing into ?one? is supposed to have happened perhaps a couple of thousand years ago, at least by the time of the language ancestral to MVS. What you?re probably seeing there is confusion over how to write the schwa that is still floating between the two consonants, where the vowel of the first syllable used to be. Schwa is an unformed vowel sound, in this case pretty short, that puts a little breathing space between the b or g and the following r. It?s that ?uh? in ?guh-lay?. In English, it?s like the sound of the ?a? in ?probably? or the ?u? in ?illustrate? or ?supposed to?. In writing Siouan words, people have sometimes tried to put it in. We have both the Oglala tribe and the town of Ogallala that was named after them. How much of a schwa there is might vary. It?s an interesting observation you?ve made that Hamilton noted enough of a vowel sound between b and r to add an ?a? to represent it, but never did the same for the sound between g and r. What do you notice from your speakers? Is there a difference like that? ? I?ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it ?. Much of what we are talking about is obviously beyond us too. Let us know when you figure it out. :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:32 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. I?ll toss in something that may help you guys. Much of what you are talking about is beyond me but I am studying it ?. I first noticed the idea of what I thought was one syllable like ?gre? actually being something like ?guh-lay? (to use the spelling that Wistrand-Robinson used in her Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I (1977) to describe the pronunciation for ?hawk?). I didn?t think too much about it at the time. I noticed it but didn?t worry about it. And when I help others learn Otoe-Missouria, I don?t bother with splitting it up and just call ?gre? one syllable since I don?t want to over-complicate things for learners. Back on topic? I noticed this a while ago but couldn?t make sense of it. Then I remembered how Wistrand-Robinson separated those syllables. Currently our spellings for 8 and 10 are: grerabri ? eight (sometimes that final ?i? is nasalized) grebr? ? ten But Hamilton has in his An Ioway Grammar on page 26: kr?-ra-ba-ne ? eight kr?-pa-na ? ten At first I couldn?t figure out what the extra syllables were doing on there. What did they mean? Then I realized that ?bri? was simply ?ba-ne? pronounced quickly and so was ?br? (pa-na). This leads me to think that these two distinct syllables were at one time individually pronounced. The reason I say this is because there is a clue in those words with at the beginning with ?kr.? Hamilton doesn?t split ?kr? into two syllables. I would assume that if they were enunciated separately, he would have done so like he did at the ends of the words. So it would appear that we had two syllables in the past which are now ?one? (though still technically two if I am understanding these emails correctly). I should also mention that Hamilton conjugates the heck out of ?grahi? (love) throughout that book without ever separating the ?gr.? Would this be the kind of precedent to illustrate how two syllables mashed into ?one? that some of you have mentioned? Sky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Sep 13 07:08:23 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 02:08:23 -0500 Subject: nine as one missing In-Reply-To: <25458582.1379008823561.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hooca?k?s number nine is such a case, too. hiz?a?kicu?s?gu?ni? - hiz?a? (ONE) - ki- cu?u?s?gu?ni? (be.without) it?s really funny when students have to say 999 because it?s extra long... - Iren Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Subject: Re: Borrowings. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn?t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me ?nanye? (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to ?nanyi? (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of ?sanke? they had ?nanye.? They didn?t miss a beat either. I haven?t come across this term before. I don?t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English ?nine.? I?m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn?t a ?let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words? sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I?m going to have to see about working with this individual more J. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual ?sanke.? I can?t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I?ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it?ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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 Fri Sep 13 07:55:37 2013 From: jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG (Jan Ullrich) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:55:37 +0200 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <28442938f998491a99a5fef568779d29@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Rory, If the proposed etymology of m?yoglas?i? is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaks? ?to cut sth? --> glaks? ?to cut one?s own? kah??ta ?to sweep sth? ?> glah??ta ?to sweep one?s own? ok??ta? ?to pour sth into? --> ogl??ta? ?to pour one?s own into? This is why I think that ogl?s?i? (possessive) comes from ok?s?i?, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan Rory wrote: >> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn?t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. >> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **?yas?i?. The vertitive form of this would be ?glas?i?, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy?glas?i?. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy?glas?i? which is based on ?kas?i?. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. >> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miy?glas?i?, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Fri Sep 13 10:44:11 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 05:44:11 -0500 Subject: nine as one missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was sent an email yesterday stemming from this conversation and my mention of an Otoe-Missouria tribal member giving me the term ?nanye? for nine. They mentioned Osage being along the lines of what was mentioned below (IE ten less one) and they asked me if Otoe-Missouria did that. I told them that to my knowledge it did not but I would keep an eye out for it. After all, ?sanke? (the ?regular? term for nine) as well as the new ?nanye? don?t suggest anything to me about being ?ten less one.? But then I gave my two cents to the conversation about bl/br/gl/gr. I mentioned an example using our current terms for eight and ten (grerabri and grebr?, respectively) and how William Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar spelled these terms out as: kr?-ra-ba-ne ? eight kr?-ba-na ? ten So I thought it would be interesting to add to the discussion that Hamilton didn?t ?mash up? ?ba-ne? into ?bri? and ?ba-na? into ?br?? but instead kept them separate while at the same time not separating the ?kr? at the beginning of each of those words. But after writing that last night, a thought struck me about those two words are similar. If I were to spell them out the way we would now in our modern orthography but still keep those syllables separate, they would be: grerabani greban? Those look pretty close. Especially if you underline what is the same: grerabani greban? Now I am wondering if the words for eight and ten are related. I don?t immediately see how ?grerabri/grerabani? could say ?eight less two? (maybe it says something else) but IF they are related, I would think that the number for nine would follow suit. But it doesn?t?it jumps to ?sanke.? It was mentioned that ?sanke? might be a loanword from Algonquin (and maybe vice versa). Going on the TENTATIVE idea of ?grerabri? and ?grebr?? being somehow related, I would think that ?sanke? would be the interloper into Otoe-Missouria (and by extension the other Siouan languages that use its cognates). I never thought to consider those two being related. Having ?sanke? in there must have thrown off the pattern-searching algorithm in my brain J. I?ll keep an eye out on this but in the meantime, are there any precedents for a number eight being ?ten less two? or anything along those lines? Or is it just a convention for nine? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:08 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: nine as one missing Hooca?k?s number nine is such a case, too. hiz?a?kicu?s?gu?ni? - hiz?a? (ONE) - ki- cu?u?s?gu?ni? (be.without) it?s really funny when students have to say 999 because it?s extra long... - Iren _____ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:00:23 -0700 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Subject: Re: Borrowings. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu That's not excessively long for "nine". In a lot of North American languages, "nine" is explicitly something like "one missing", "one less" or "almost ten", etc. So often it's a long construction. The Miami word for nine, ninkotimeneehki, appears to mean "one missing", and in its conservative pronunciation is six syllables long. "Nine" is usually the oddball of the first ten numbers, historically. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rory Larson Sent: Sep 12, 2013 10:34 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. Yes! That sounds like a very nice find. Keep it up with that speaker! :) The only thing that crosses my mind is Lakhota napciyuNka, Santee napciwaNka, meaning ?nine?, which seems excessively long for a common number. Perhaps it is related to the /napci/ part of those words somehow? Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:27 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Borrowings. Fascinating! Keep up the good work, Sky! From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:37 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. I couldn?t find the term for nine in my office but I did get to talk to the individual who gave it to me. They gave me ?nanye? (NAH-nyeh) which sounds very close to ?nanyi? (sugar). Does this term ring a bell to anyone? They easily rattled off the numbers 1-10 exactly as I know them but instead of ?sanke? they had ?nanye.? They didn?t miss a beat either. I haven?t come across this term before. I don?t know if it is some long lost word for nine, if it means nine in another language, or if it is an Otoe-ization of the English ?nine.? I?m not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical of that last one. Especially with the ease that they blew through the numbers. It wasn?t a ?let me look up and to the left while I try to remember and then use the careful enunciation of an individual largely unfamiliar with these words? sort of thing but a fast, practiced/familiar pronunciation. I?m going to have to see about working with this individual more J. Any thoughts? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Sky Campbell Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 9:16 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. About a year ago, I had a member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe tell me a word for nine that is different than the usual ?sanke.? I can?t remember what it was but I have it somewhere in my office. I?ll try to find it tomorrow. This talk about Siouan borrowing this term from Algonquian or vice versa has me very curious about that alternate term for nine. Maybe it?ll shed some light here. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 8:59 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Borrowings. > As I mentioned before, this "shankka" number for "nine" is also around in Algonquian. The word can be reconstructed as Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, but there are lots of problems: the etymon is completely missing from all of Eastern Algonquian, Miami-Illinois and Blackfoot; the Cree and Menominee forms don't have the proper reflexes for those languages and look like they're all borrowed from Ojibwe; and the Shawnee and Cheyenne forms inexplicably look like they derive from Proto-Algonquian *?a?nka, not *?a?nka. If it's a loan into Algonquian, it was borrowed early on, but after Algonquian had already started to separate out into dialects. Missing from Miami/Illinois is troubling, since they seem to be the bunch most in contact with Kaw, Osage and Quapaw and probably all of Dhegiha. ?? 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 Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK Fri Sep 13 11:12:31 2013 From: Granta at EDGEHILL.AC.UK (Anthony Grant) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:12:31 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jill, I think it?s ingenious and probably right. It?s a grammaticalisation path I hadn?t heard of being explored in the study of numerals til Pam mentioned it. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: 12 September 2013 22:51 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ?sit? - that?s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi? ?I?m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited ? I?m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it?s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it?s a REAL stretch, but linking up ?sitting? in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 14:08:44 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:08:44 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <003e01ceb056$a2c7c440$e8574cc0$@org> Message-ID: Jan, Thanks for that. I?m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. Sorry for the confusion about ?vertitive?. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn?t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ?reflexive? and ?possessive?. Would this be ?possessive?, ?look in at one?s own?, or ?reflexive?, ?look in at oneself?? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. Regards, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Jan Ullrich Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, If the proposed etymology of m?yoglas?i? is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaks? ?to cut sth? --> glaks? ?to cut one?s own? kah??ta ?to sweep sth? ?> glah??ta ?to sweep one?s own? ok??ta? ?to pour sth into? --> ogl??ta? ?to pour one?s own into? This is why I think that ogl?s?i? (possessive) comes from ok?s?i?, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan Rory wrote: >> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn?t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. >> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **?yas?i?. The vertitive form of this would be ?glas?i?, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy?glas?i?. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy?glas?i? which is based on ?kas?i?. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. >> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miy?glas?i?, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, Rory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Fri Sep 13 15:57:35 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:57:35 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan bl?ha, n?ha, yuh?. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so y?z? ?to get, obtain? is conjugated 1sg bl?ze, 2sg hn?ze, 3sg y?z?abe, 1pl ?y?zaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:01:51 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:01:51 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <003e01ceb056$a2c7c440$e8574cc0$@org> Message-ID: I agree with you, Jan. This is the construction often called the "reflexive possessive", rather than just the possessive, to emphasise the subject is the possessor. Not sure how ki-ka- became gla-, historically there must have been reanalysis by analogy of some sort... Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Jan Ullrich [jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:55 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, If the proposed etymology of m?yoglas?i? is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: kaks? ?to cut sth? --> glaks? ?to cut one?s own? kah??ta ?to sweep sth? ?> glah??ta ?to sweep one?s own? ok??ta? ?to pour sth into? --> ogl??ta? ?to pour one?s own into? This is why I think that ogl?s?i? (possessive) comes from ok?s?i?, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:05:06 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:05:06 -0600 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: <7e9917bd382a43a588606fd917f2bff9@BY2PR08MB048.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Rory, I think your idea about an extra intrusive "r" is sort of like one I had a long time ago. In the little paper I wrote for the Eric Hamp festschrift issue of IJAL I dealt with a weird Lakota fact (that is no longer true -- another casualty of bilingual Lakota speakers). Older speakers always changed the dative of "kaga" 'make' into kichaga, with an aspirated ch, instead of the expected kicaga, which would be the normal palatalization of /k/ after /i/. Since /ch/ in Lakota comes from PS *y, I proposed that at some point there must have been a rule that k disappeared after ki and the resulting kia sequence acquired an epenthetic /y/. That epenthetic /y/ was salient enough to be included when other */y/ changed to /ch/. I think I remember finding that there is a Dhegiha /dh/ from the same */y/ -- you can confirm that perhaps. Anyway, your idea that an /r/ got in the picture isn't too far from my idea that we are dealing with a /y/ that appeared between vowels when a /k/ got deleted. If that's true, then we can say that ki > g happened before */y/ in the ka- verbs just as it did in the y- verbs. I do not remember how we sort out the PSI difference between */y/ and */r/, but I do recall that they get mixed up sometimes. Bob, we need you again. Just as a little footnote to the /r/ idea: when I was in grad school I wrote a course paper about whether or not English "speak" is cognate with German "sprechen", given that there is no trace of an /r/ in the English. I discovered that there are several sets of correspondences in Germanic with and without an /r/ in the initial or final cluster. I remember the English doublet "wiggle' and "wriggle", and something about "spark", but the details are in a file cabinet in my office and I'm not there now. I think German "Sprosse" got into the game, as well as some word for a thatched roof. The 19th century writer who brought all of these together concocted a story about primitive folks around a campfire dealing with twigs and sparks and speaking noises that was quite amusing. What he proposed was a sporadic "r-emphatikum" that was used for some words and survived only in some of them in some languages. Perhaps Siouan and Germanic both latched onto an "r-emphatikum". What fun we can have with abstract phonology. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rory Larson wrote: > Jan, > > Thanks for that. I???m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. > > Sorry for the confusion about ???vertitive???. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn???t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ???reflexive??? and ???possessive???. Would this be ???possessive???, ???look in at one???s own???, or ???reflexive???, ???look in at oneself???? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? > > If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. > > Regards, > Rory > > > From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Jan Ullrich > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM > To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU > Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) > > Rory, > > If the proposed etymology of m??yoglas???i?? is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. > In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: > > kaks?? ???to cut sth??? --> glaks?? ???to cut one???s own??? > kah????ta ???to sweep sth??? ???> glah????ta ???to sweep one???s own??? > ok????ta?? ???to pour sth into??? --> ogl????ta?? ???to pour one???s own into??? > > This is why I think that ogl??s???i?? (possessive) comes from ok??s???i??, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. > > I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. > > Jan > > > > Rory wrote: > >>> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn???t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. > >>> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **??yas???i??. The vertitive form of this would be ??glas???i??, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy??glas???i??. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy??glas???i?? which is based on ??kas???i??. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy??glas???i??, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy??glas???i??, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. > >>> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for miy??glas???i??, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, > > Rory > > From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:10:11 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:10:11 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Willem's comments below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:57 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan bl?ha, n?ha, yuh?. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Willem: Good to see we agree on this. That is what you would expect, of Lakota bluha had three syllables. So you would have to say that either bluha has two syllables, or that bluha has three syllables, and the third sylable is stressed. Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so y?z? ?to get, obtain? is conjugated 1sg bl?ze, 2sg hn?ze, 3sg y?z?abe, 1pl ?y?zaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Willem: Great. So you could say Kansa is more conservative... Or you could say that the rule ordering was different. Kansa applies 2nd syllable stress rule first, then drops the vowel, whereas Dakotan drops the vowel first, then applies 2nd syllable stress rule. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 16:12:35 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:35 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Yes for Omaha: br?ze, n?ze, riz? (or riz?(-i) or riz?-bi), ?r?ze, etc. It looks like Dakotan and Dhegiha are handling accents differently here. Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:58 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Lakota phonetics > Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan bl?ha, n?ha, yuh?. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so y?z? ?to get, obtain? is conjugated 1sg bl?ze, 2sg hn?ze, 3sg y?z?abe, 1pl ?y?zaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at ku.edu Fri Sep 13 16:06:22 2013 From: rankin at ku.edu (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:06:22 +0000 Subject: ki + ka > gla Message-ID: John Koontz had a good explanation of this in one of his papers. I've explained about all I have time for right now about the BL, GL sequences. I might mention that the same kinds of argument apply in the case of PT, PC, PK (where permitted), PS, etc. The P is also a reflex of *wV- and acts as a "syllable" for accent placement. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlarson1 at UNL.EDU Fri Sep 13 18:23:05 2013 From: rlarson1 at UNL.EDU (Rory Larson) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:23:05 +0000 Subject: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, thanks for your comments. I hope the idea you describe isn't in the past tense, because it makes very good sense to me. In Omaha, we do have /dh/ from epenthetic */y/ in some contexts, but not in that one. There, it's still just epenthetic /y/, which we haven't been recognizing phonemically. Lakota: kaghA kichaghA Omaha: gaghE gi(y)aghE (I'm using /gh/ here for the voiced velar fricative, which you generally use g-with-a-hat for, and we have lately been writing /x/.) The idea I proposed was that the intrusive "r" was an analogical development, while your proposal for *ki-ka- => *ki-ya- => *kya- => gla- is straight phonology. If my idea is shot down, I would certainly favor yours. In fact, I think the two might work together to reinforce each other. I also enjoyed the German "r-emphatikum" discussion. I never heard of that idea before! Best, Rory -----Original Message----- From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:05 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) Rory, I think your idea about an extra intrusive "r" is sort of like one I had a long time ago. In the little paper I wrote for the Eric Hamp festschrift issue of IJAL I dealt with a weird Lakota fact (that is no longer true -- another casualty of bilingual Lakota speakers). Older speakers always changed the dative of "kaga" 'make' into kichaga, with an aspirated ch, instead of the expected kicaga, which would be the normal palatalization of /k/ after /i/. Since /ch/ in Lakota comes from PS *y, I proposed that at some point there must have been a rule that k disappeared after ki and the resulting kia sequence acquired an epenthetic /y/. That epenthetic /y/ was salient enough to be included when other */y/ changed to /ch/. I think I remember finding that there is a Dhegiha /dh/ from the same */y/ -- you can confirm that perhaps. Anyway, your idea that an /r/ got in the picture isn't too far from my idea that we are dealing with a /y/ that appeared between vowels when a ! /k/ got deleted. If that's true, then we can say that ki > g happened before */y/ in the ka- verbs just as it did in the y- verbs. I do not remember how we sort out the PSI difference between */y/ and */r/, but I do recall that they get mixed up sometimes. Bob, we need you again. Just as a little footnote to the /r/ idea: when I was in grad school I wrote a course paper about whether or not English "speak" is cognate with German "sprechen", given that there is no trace of an /r/ in the English. I discovered that there are several sets of correspondences in Germanic with and without an /r/ in the initial or final cluster. I remember the English doublet "wiggle' and "wriggle", and something about "spark", but the details are in a file cabinet in my office and I'm not there now. I think German "Sprosse" got into the game, as well as some word for a thatched roof. The 19th century writer who brought all of these together concocted a story about primitive folks around a campfire dealing with twigs and sparks and speaking noises that was quite amusing. What he proposed was a sporadic "r-emphatikum" that was used for some words and survived only in some of them in some languages. Perhaps Siouan and Germanic both latched onto an "r-emphatikum". What fun we can have with abstract phonology. Best, David David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rory Larson wrote: > Jan, > > Thanks for that. I?m glad to confirm that it works that way in Dakotan too. > > Sorry for the confusion about ?vertitive?. I was a bit fuzzy on that term, but googling and looking at a few entries just now I see the word is pretty much pegged to the concept of traveling back to an original point, which wouldn?t apply here. The other two terms mentioned were ?reflexive? and ?possessive?. Would this be ?possessive?, ?look in at one?s own?, or ?reflexive?, ?look in at oneself?? Is there actually a difference in the protocol of the language, either synchronically or diachronically? > > If the gla- does in fact originate from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-, then that blows away my analysis below. If that is the case, I also hope that someone who understands how that works better than I do will correct me. > > Regards, > Rory > > > From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of > Jan Ullrich > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 2:56 AM > To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU > Subject: Re: source of GL (was BL accent patterns) > > Rory, > > If the proposed etymology of m?yoglas?i? is correct then what is involved is a possessive, rather than a vertitive, I think. > In possessive forms the instrumental prefix ka- becomes gla-, as in: > > kaks? ?to cut sth? --> glaks? ?to cut one?s own? > kah??ta ?to sweep sth? ?> glah??ta ?to sweep one?s own? > ok??ta? ?to pour sth into? --> ogl??ta? ?to pour one?s own into? > > This is why I think that ogl?s?i? (possessive) comes from ok?s?i?, although the former is not used as an independent lexical unit. It is not uncommon, however, that possessives (and other forms) of some verbs are used only in compounds. > > I think that historically the gla- form originates from the combination of the prefix ki- with the instrumental ka-. I hope that colleagues who have been working on the diachronic analyses will correct me if this is not the case. > > Jan > > > > Rory wrote: > >>> In this case, I think there has been an analogical replacement of a difficult *k-k- series that speakers didn?t want to hack their way through. When they hit the first *k-, they were momentarily confused as to whether it was the k of the *ki- or the k of the *ka- their verb started with. They opted for the latter. Then they wanted to make it vertitive, and remembered from all their *kru- and *kra- and *kre- verbs that *kr- did just that. The [a] that followed was the [a] of the *ka- rather than that of *ra-. They just infixed an *r into the *ka- prefix to make it vertitive. The resulting GLa- thus became vertitive for both *ra- and *ka-. The difference is that for *ra-, it is the G makes it vertitive, while for *ka-, it is the L that signals vertitive/reflexive/possessive. > >>> Now if we could peep into something by means of our mouth, perhaps Lakhota would describe this with the verb **?yas?i?. The vertitive form of this would be ?glas?i?, and a mirror that we use our mouth to look into would be a miy?glas?i?. This would have five syllables, counting the underlying *ki- that is represented by the G. But the actual word is the homonym miy?glas?i? which is based on ?kas?i?. We do not have an underlying affixed *ki-. We have only the instrumental prefix ka- which has been modified with an infixed L to signal vertitivity. Assuming this analysis of the vertitive/reflexive/possessive of *ka- verbs is correct, I think the phonological argument would indicate that while miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into by means of our mouth, has five syllables, its homonym miy?glas?i?, a mirror that we look into forcefully, has only four. > >>> Hoping that Willem, Jan and David still support my etymology for >>> miy?glas?i?, and otherwise ducking and running for cover, > > Rory > > From david.rood at COLORADO.EDU Fri Sep 13 21:35:27 2013 From: david.rood at COLORADO.EDU (ROOD DAVID S) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:35:27 -0600 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370E61E@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I wouldn't say "moved rightward" but "kept it where it is in the unprefixed form" since for us, at least, the prefix is a consonant and not a syllable. This difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha is obviously the reason all of this discussion has been so confused. In Lakota, bl clearly does NOT function like an underlying syllable for stress assignment purposes, as Willem and I asserted at the beginning. David S. Rood Dept. of Linguistics Univ. of Colorado 295 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0295 USA rood at colorado.edu On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Rankin, Robert L. wrote: >> Bob, I don't think you should discount first person inflected forms, since > the accent always moves forward as we add prefixes. If "bluhA" were three > syllables, we'd have to stress it blUha. > > That's true, and I'd have expected Dakotan bl??ha, n??ha, yuh??. I take it that doesn't happen, and Dakota has moved accent rightward an extra syllable? > > Kansa keeps it exactly where it is on all the BL lexemes, so y??z?? ???to get, obtain??? is conjugated 1sg bl??ze, 2sg hn??ze, 3sg y??z??abe, 1pl ??y??zaabe. I assume other Dhegiha dialects keep accent the same. > > > Bob > From rankin at KU.EDU Sat Sep 14 00:17:41 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:17:41 +0000 Subject: Lakota phonetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I wouldn't say "moved rightward" but "kept it where it is in the unprefixed form" since for us, at least, the prefix is a consonant and not a syllable. This difference between Dakotan and Dhegiha is obviously the reason all of this discussion has been so confused. In Lakota, bl clearly does NOT function like an underlying syllable for stress assignment purposes, as Willem and I asserted at the beginning. Yes, that's partly to blame for the confusion, but there does seem to be a difference in the way Dakotan treats 1st person sg. forms of Y-stem verbs, like bluhA, on the one hand and the way it treats lexemes in which initial bl- is always a part of the stem on the other hand. Where bl- is the product of 1sg inflection, accent always behaves according to the 2nd syll. assignment rule. Where bl- is organic to the word/stem it treats b as a separate syllable from l in most cases. I used the Univ. of Colorado Siouan Archive's version of Buechel for the statistics. The data follow. The items that do not support the two-syllable analysis of bl- are highlighted. Most such exceptions seem to be reduplications, i.e., not really exceptions, but there are several prominent cases where accent has shifted to the second syllable, and in those instances I think we do have to speak of a shift or movement. blabl?ta Engl. an upland plain class n. p. 110 blask? Engl. flat, as a board class adj. v. also bl?ska E.g. blask?ska class adj. red. p. 110 blask?ya Engl. flatly, on the flat side class adv. p. 110 bl?xa Engl. broad at one end, tapering class adj. v. also bl?ga p. 110 bl?ya Engl. level, plain class adj. E.g. - h?gla ?he feels good E.g. Wa?p?ka ognake k?? t?y? bl?ye Engl. a plain class n. p. 110 bl?ye zitk?tac? hu st?la Engl. hairy prairie clover petalostemum villosum the pulse bl?yela Engl. levelly, plain class adj. p. 110 bl?yeya Engl. evenly class adv. p. 110 blaz?h? Engl. ripped open of itself, torn open class part. p. 110 ble Engl. a lake class n. p. 110 blebl?ca class adj. red. of bleca p. 110 blebl?cah? class part. red. of blecah?? p. 110 bleble?ya Engl. to amuse one class v. red. v. also blesya E.g. bleblesic?iya ?he amuses, blec? Engl. getting poorer and poorer, as from sickness class adv. v. also mableca p. 110 blec?h? Engl. broken of itself class part. p. 110 bl?ga Engl. the American white pelican, a large whitish water-bird with white spots class ble?yoka Engl. little pools alongside a creek filled with weeds class n. v. also miniyu?pala ble?yo?kokpa Engl. a buffalo wallow or hole where the water gathers after a rain class blekh?yute Engl. an isthmus, a strait or channel in a lake class n. v. also ble and kiyute p. bl?la Engl. a little lake, a pond class n. p. 111 ble?kaxmi Engl. a bog or beech class n. p. 111 ble??kokpa Engl. a lake basin class n. p. 111 ble? class adj. v. also cont. of bleza p. 111 blesy? Engl. make clear, cause to recover from stupidity class v.a. E.g. blesw?ya Engl. bley?ta Engl. at the lake class adv. p. 111 bl?za Engl. clear, clear-sighted class adj. E.g. i?ta - ?sober E.g. mabl?za E.g. wicableza s?e bl?za, but more probably bl?za Engl. a loon, the great Northern Diver class n. p. 111 bl?zesni Engl. desperate, reckless class adj. E.g. - s?e ?k? ?he acted excitedly p. 111 bl?zic?iya Engl. recruit, restore one's health class v. p. 111 blih?ca Engl. be lively or active, industrious E.g. mabl?heca E.g. nibl?heca E.g. ?bl?hecapi blih?ic?iya Engl. take exercise, practise, exert one's self class v. reflex. p. 111 blihel?heca class v. v. also red. of bliheca p. 111 blihel?ya Engl. in a lively manner class adv. p. 111 blih?ya Engl. make active, industrious class v.a. E.g. blih?waya E.g. blih?ic?iya, or blih?c?iya bl? Engl. a ridge or range of hills the word has been used with reference to the Black blo?kat? Engl. cultivate potatoes, by making hills around plants class v. p. 111 blo?liya Engl. along the ridge class adv. p. 111 blobl?ska Engl. the trachea tube class n. p. 111 blogy??ka Engl. remain at home when others go out to hunt class v.n. E.g. blogm??ka E.g. bl?hu Engl. potato-tops edible class n. p. 111 blo?pat? Engl. a potato masher class n. p. 111 blok? Engl. the male of animals class n. p. 111 blok?sak Engl. a belch class n. p. 111 blok?ska Engl. hiccup, hiccough class v.i. and t. E.g. blow?kaska E.g. blowakaska lo talo blok?cok?y? Engl. mid-summer class n. p. 111 blok?h? Engl. last summer class n. p. 111 blok?tu Engl. summer, next summer, this summer class n. p. 111 bl?kit?a Engl. be very tired or weary, as by walking, carrying a load class v. E.g. bl?makit?e blop?hi ag?yapi Engl. potato-picking bread class n. p. 111 blot?h?ka Engl. a chief, the leader of a war party class n. E.g. Tuwa wazuya it?c? ca he - . blow???ila Engl. a divide, a single upland plain between streams, top of a ridge class n. v. bl?za Engl. the pelican a big gray-black water bird with a long bill the Indians used to bl? Engl. powdered, pulverized, fine class adj. E.g. aguyapi - ?flour E.g. maka - ?dust p. 111 blubl? Engl. mellow and dry, as apples or turnips class adj. red. v. also blu class v. 1st pers. bluy?la Engl. in a powdered, pulverized condition class adv. v. also - kaga p. 112 mna Engl. to swell class v.n. E.g. ?upe mnala yelo. v. also yumna p. 337 mnah?? Engl. a rip class n. Engl. ripped of itself class part. E.g. mnah??h? v. also red. of mna?c?iya Engl. to gather for one's self class v. p. 337 mnakh?ya Engl. to take up a collection for one; to gather one's own class v.a. E.g. Waxpaye mnaxc?xca Engl. the prairie lily the word is perhaps not used class n. p. 337 mnay?? Engl. to gather together, collect class v.a. E.g. mnawaya E.g. mna?y?pi E.g. mnay??pi mni Engl. water class n. Engl. to lay up to dry, spread out in the sun to dry class v.a. mni v. also yumni p. 337 mni?li Engl. To travel over the water. class v. E.g. ??xp? - ?y?ke i.e. ?moving over the mnih?pi s?e Engl. Flooding, seeping in, as water into a house. class adv. p. 815 mnix?xa Engl. To run with water. class v. E.g. I?ta - m?ke ?My eyes are running with mniy?sniya Engl. To make the water very cool, to cool water, to become cool water class mniy?xcaya Engl. Full of water, tears. class adv. E.g. I?ta - waceyakiye i.e. ?with eyes full of mn?ga Engl. to crunch, as a horse does in eating corn class v. p. 340 mn?mnus Engl. to creak class v. E.g. - h?gla ?to creak suddenly, as a piece of wood when mnux v. also cont. of mnuga E.g. mnuxmn?ga class v. red. of mnuga v. also mnuga v. also -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 15:38:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:38:23 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FB32E@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: I've had a couple of requests for my data sets from the various dictionaries, so here are the BL/BN/MN sets from 4 languages. Rory says that Omaha matches the other Dhegiha sets. These are nothing but the pertinent entries culled from lexica by Buechel, Quintero and Rankin for the 4 languages. As David points out, the Dakotan data show clearly how phonological restructuring takes place. Enjoy, Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of De Reuse, Willem [WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ?water?. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem?s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BL stems.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 330315 bytes Desc: BL stems.pdf URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 15:55:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:55:23 +0000 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Iren, Thanks for this. Comment follows. Bob > Hooca?k grizzly bear is ma?a?co (definitely with a voiceless affricate) This is the word that has /th/ or the derivative /ch/ is ALL the Mississippi Valley Siouan languages. So the /ch/ does NOT become IPA [?] in this particular case even though these voiceless aspirates usually come up as voiced stops in Chiwere-Hochunk. It's an interesting exception. I'm guessing it's the same in Chiwere. > As for cow elk, I?m not aware of there being a specific word for a female elk, generally elk is hu?u?wa? OK, that's the cognate that goes with Dhegiha ooph? and it seems to show a reflex of what would have been /b/, as expected. So 'elk' isn't exceptional. In the plains languages it's usually 'cow elk' and the bull is something like he xaka. Bob > The "true aspirates" in Omaha should generally have voiced counterparts in Hochunk. There may be interesting exceptions. I'd like to check 'cow elk' and 'grizzly'. Hochunk should have voiced stops in cognates for Dhegiha ophaN and maNtho. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Mon Sep 16 16:05:43 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:05:43 -0500 Subject: Locatives and wa- problems. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does this shifting mentioned here have an official name? The reason I ask is I have been working on a parsing program to help me translate sources like Merrill and Hamilton. I?ve gotten very familiar with their respective orthographies, but sometimes an obvious ?translation? doesn?t appear in my head. So while I was bored on the plane to the Breath of Life this past summer in D.C., I began writing this program (Jill Greer got to see it in action in its infancy). What the program does is take in a particular source?s orthography and converts it into ours for easier reading (and therefore translating). And where the source could go either way (for example, Merrill?s ?h? could either be an ?h? or an ?x?), the program cranks out all of the possibilities. For example, Merrill has an individual?s name as ?Mehlhunca? in his diary. Input that into the program and you get 8 possibilities (because 3 of those characters can go one of two ways, therefore 2 x 2 x 2 = 8). The output would be: mihah?nche mihah?nje mihax?nche mihax?nje mixah?nche mixah?nje mixax?nche mixax?nje Now I can use these to try to figure out what they say. Now I can eliminate what I don?t want and work with the others. Turns out number 4 is what works for me. The output ?mihax?nje? is actually Miha X?nje (Big Second-Born Daughter (an Otoe chief)). So if I?d been having trouble with ?Mehlhunca?, I could use this to help. Now that the explanation is out of the way, I can use this same kind of parsing to work with the ?shifting? that we?ve been talking about. What I?d like to know is if there is a sort of list of shifting guidelines (I know things are rarely locked in stone.) that I could use to attempt to pattern out the shifts in the language. As was mentioned by Rory: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [?] Now I can take matches like these and use them to try to work backwards in some situations and forwards in others. So let?s say I didn?t know what ?ma?e? meant and wanted to browse possible cognates. The ??? would be linked to ?z? (using the above guidelines) and would give me ?maze? as a possibility. Then if I found ?maze? in Ponca and saw it was translated as iron/metal, that would be pretty good evidence for that translation to apply to my ?ma?e.? If I want to get fancy (maybe later down the road ?) I can try to calculate the timeframe for multiple shifts using the documentation as a guide. For example, it looks to be about 100 (or slightly less) years to shift from ?s? to ?th.? I?m basing that on the name ?Wathake Ruje? (Raw Eater) which was listed in the late 1800s but was also rendered as ?Wasake Ruje? in Stephen Long?s material from 1817 (two separate individuals). So what I?m after is a list of guidelines for these shifts. As Rory mentioned, d/t can shift to ch/j when followed by a ?front vowel.? Is there a list like this out there that I can plug into my program? Ultimately I?d like to link this program to a Siouan dictionary file and anything that is outputted can be checked against that file for a match (yet another feature for down the road?will need to have a Siouan dictionary, first!). Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:27 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Sky, ? Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ? ? ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. ? ? te/che ? buffalo ? inde/inje ? face ? ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) ? tade/taje ? wind Notice that these cases are all followed by a front vowel, [i] or [e]. When we make a front vowel, we arch our tongue up forward in our mouth so that it runs parallel to our palate. Then, when we try to make a consonant next to that front vowel, it tends to slur to the middle because the tongue isn?t pointed where it needs to be. So after or before an [i] or [e] sound, [t] or [d] at the front and [k] or [g] at the back often tend to slip toward the middle and become something like [ch] or [j]. This is called palatalization, and it happens in the evolution of a lot of languages, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The letter C in Latin was originally always pronounced [k], and the letter G was always hard [g]. But in time, whenever these came before [i] or [e], G came to be pronounced as [j], and C to be pronounced first as [ch] and eventually as [s] in French (and French words in English). Palatalization has gone from the other direction here. The Ponca form is more like the original. In Otoe-Missouria, the original [t] has slid backward to become [ch], and original [d] has slid back to become [j]. ? Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: ? ? mase/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? si/?i ? yellow ? Actually, Ponca should have both [s] and [z]. Omaha certainly does, and Ponca is very close. For some reason, Fletcher and La Flesche decided to write both of these sounds with a c-cedilla, ?. That has causes a good deal of unnecessary confusion, and has cost me a couple years of my life working with my Omaha speaker to untangle the words in the Stabler-Swetland dictionary that was built on their orthography. This pattern should actually be: ? m?ze/ma?e ? metal ? ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) ? si/thi ? foot ? zi/?i ? yellow Here, the correspondence is: Ponca [s] = Otoe-Missouria [th] Ponca [z] = Otoe-Missouria [?] The difference is simply that the Otoe-Missouria sound is pronounced with the tongue further forward, against the back of the front teeth instead of on the alveolar ridge behind them. From the Ponca point of view, Otoe-Missourias are lisping. ? All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: ? ? sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) ? nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) ? nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) ? In general, I think you?re absolutely right there, though I suspect the actual Ponca cognate to Otoe-Missouria thewe would probably be sebe rather than sabe. We have both in Omaha, and they are obviously closely related. The general term for ?black? is sabe, but sebe means a kind of shadowed dark, as in the woman?s name Mi-sebe, meaning ?The Dark of the Moon?. I?m sure your linguist friend is correct about ?thi-pi? meaning ?they live?, or rather ?they dwell?. I?ve always understood that the *hti term can be used either as the noun ?house? or as the verb ?dwell?. ? Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? ? ? What do you guys think? ? Going back to the common ancestor language, yes. That would be Mississippi Valley Siouan, which includes Lakhota, Hooc?k, Otoe-Missouria, Ponca and Omaha, among others. The presumed ancestral particle here is *(a)pi, which Bob and I often argue about. In the Dakotan branch, it stays (a)pi. In the Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria branch, I think it is always (a)wi, as you have it. In these two branches, it is a pluralizing particle. In Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it is apparently used normally to pluralize only ?you? and ?we?, and in Hooc?k, ?I?, while a different particle like -ire or -nye is used to pluralize the third person. In Dakotan though, I think it is used as commonly in the third person as for ?we? and ?you?. In Omaha and Ponca, the cognate particle should be (a)bi, but in these languages it conveys an entirely different meaning, and apparently lives almost exclusively in the third person, both singular and plural. So going back to the common ancestor of all these languages, MVS, it is very likely that the particle was used in the third person, though it is not so certain that it meant plurality then. Going back only to the nearer common ancestral language, Hooc?k-Ioway-Otoe-Missouria, it almost certainly meant plurality, but it may have been restricted to ?you?, ?we?, and perhaps ?I?. However, it is possible that the *ire ending had not yet achieved total dominance of third person plural then, and that *(a)wi still lived along beside it in the third person to some extent. Then, perhaps that *(a)wi took on the specialized sense of duality in contrast to the broader plurality of ire/nye in the line that led to Otoe-Missouria, and was able to maintain itself in that niche, but was overlooked by early linguists who never ran across this dual form. The hypothesis is reasonable; it?s just thin on evidential support at the moment. By the way, very nice comparative work! I look forward to seeing how you develop it. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, Sky Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:24 AM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. I was the one who was questioning the ?wi suffix as a 3rd-person dual for verbs. That conjugation is in newer material but as of yet I have been unable to find it in older material. Rev. Hamilton in his An Ioway Grammar jumps straight from 3rd-person singular to 3rd-person plural (-nye). It was only recently that the idea of questioning ?wi as a 3rd-person dual was put to me. So I am in the middle of investigating it right now. However I do have a bit of anecdotal evidence that might support the use of ?wi in this context. I have to set this up a bit so please bear with me ?. Since I?ve started working with Otoe-Missouria (and Ioway), I?ve noticed patterns when comparing Otoe-Missouria to Ponca (my wife is Ponca). Where Otoe-Missouria has ?ch? or ?j?, Ponca tends to have ?d? or ?t?. For example: ?Ponca/Otoe-Missouria? formatting in the list below. te/che ? buffalo inde/inje ? face ti/chi ? house/live (the context of ?live? here seems to be older in Otoe-Missouria?nowadays this mostly refers to ?house?) tade/taje ? wind Another pattern is where Otoe-Missouria has ?? (dh)? or ?th?, Ponca tends to have ?s?. For example: mase/ma?e ? metal ska/thka ? white (although a few Otoe-Missourias today still use ?ska?) si/thi ? foot si/?i ? yellow The older Otoe-Missouria language material (Long, Maximilian) is chock-full of ?s? where nowadays we have ? or th. All of that was to show a few patterns I have found and which are probably old news to you guys. Still, there is another pattern that I found that made me think again about the use of ?wi to indicate they-dual. This pattern is based on a conversation with a linguist at the recent Breath of Life I attended this past summer. He mentioned studying Lakota and mentioned that the term ?tipi? literally said ?they-live? (I haven?t studied Lakota so I can?t claim how accurate this is). This made sense to me in that I was aware of the t/ch as a possible swap and that our term ?chi? does carry a context of ?live.? But the ending ?-pi? had me curious because of our ?wi which is supposed to indicate they-dual. So I started looking for that particular pattern (b-p/w) and sure enough I found entries like: sabe/thewe ? black (that one has both the s/th AND b/w swapped?an older form for ?thewe? is ?sewe? which is used as brown nowadays) nomba/nuwe ? two (the ?nomba? is based on Maximilian/Thwaites? spelling) nombe/nawe ? hand (ditto on the spelling) (There may be an example of a reversal of this with Hamilton?s entry of ?w?? (page 39 of his An Ioway Grammar) to indicate surprise where nowadays you hear ?b?? around here.) Ok, so using that pattern, would it be possible for the 3rd-person dual ?-wi? in question to be a form of the Lakota ?-pi? that was told to me? And if so, it would certainly explain its existence. And if so, what context does ?-pi? have? Does it also represent 3rd-person dual? Does it refer to ?they? when ?they? are known to the speaker and listener and not just they in general? What do you guys think? PS I am not well versed in Ponca so I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies there ?. Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:58 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. ? Does this answer your question? Yes. And thank you especially for the more complicated answer! You are right about the Chiwere claim; the one that came up recently I think is specifically about Otoe. Apparently the -wi particle is supposed to imply two actors when used in the third person. But this is not attested in older sources, so the question is whether that usage is a recent development, or a misunderstanding by recent linguists, or whether the older linguists just missed it. I thought getting a Hooca?k perspective might help in evaluating the claim. I don?t have much to add to that other than in connection with the two different positionals, jee/ja?a?, that you mention. In Omaha, in fact, we do have two ?standing? positionals, t?e and t?a?. The first is used for inanimates, and the second (rarely) for animate beings. If I recall the sound shift rules I once learned from John and Bob correctly, MVS */t?/ should stay /t?/ in Omaha and go to /j/ in Hooca?k, so I think those two pairs should probably be cognate. Bob might be better able to comment on this. Best, Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:17 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems. Hi Rory, the quick and simple answer to your question is no. There is no interchangeability between the two PL markers in Hooca?k. -wi is not used to mark 3rd PL subject. However, I recall that this has been claimed for Chiwere, maybe there it is indeed possible. The more complicated answer to your question is, that there is one sort of exception that I know of: For all full verbs 3rd PL subject is -ire in Hooca?k. And this is also true for all auxiliaries, except in the case of the positionals. With them -ire cannot be used, they inflect irregularly anyway.. There the third PL form is always na?a?k (long version of the sitting/neutral positional), so that position is neutralized. However, there is a very curious form that one encounters every so often, which is haja?wi = they exist. It consists of ha-(collective marker) jee (vertical positional, sometimes used as existential) and -wi (PL). This would be the only case in which you could get a -wi for 3rd PL subject. BUT it does NOT alternate with -ire, and it has to co-occur with the collective. I think there might have been two diferent "positionals" jee/ja?a? at some point and they got mostly conflated nowadays. This rare form here is a reflex of the one that was only used with animates and it is still in some use as an existential (hence also the curious nasalization). So really there is NO alternation bewteen -ire and -wi in Hooca?k ever. Does this answer your question? Best, Iren One other question that has come up that you might want to comment on: Does Hooca?k ever use the -wi particle in the third person? I thought a long time ago I had read that in the third person plural, either -wi or -ire could occur, but with somewhat different meanings. Is there anything to that, or is my memory mistaken? ?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at OMTRIBE.ORG Mon Sep 16 17:15:16 2013 From: sky at OMTRIBE.ORG (Campbell, Sky) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:15:16 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys ?). I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? Sky Campbell, B. A. Language Director Otoe-Missouria Tribe 580-723-4466 ext. 111 sky at omtribe.org From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Grant Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:13 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Jill, I think it?s ingenious and probably right. It?s a grammaticalisation path I hadn?t heard of being explored in the study of numerals til Pam mentioned it. Anthony From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Greer, Jill Sent: 12 September 2013 22:51 To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. It does work for ?sit? - that?s nearly a formulaic closing for prayers (and even public speaking): se ihanaNGe khe/khi? ?I?m sitting here (talking)- in your direction/toward you. I apologize that my email is also limited ? I?m using NG for my eng here. Lots of folks did have a knowledge of Plains Sign Language, so it?s a good theory, Bob. But I have to say I really love the 9/expecting something connection that Pam made - it?s a REAL stretch, but linking up ?sitting? in this particular etymology with the last month of pregnancy / or even childbirth would be extremely interesting. Any thoughts?? Jill From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rory Larson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:49 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Nice idea! If that works, I like it! :) Rory From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:34 PM To: SIOUAN at LISTSERV.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Hmm, speculatively, you don't suppose that the "other" phonetic form of nanye, namely n??e, could be related to 'sit' in Ioway in the same sense that y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota? The positional would describe the last bent finger in finger counting from 1 to 10. Ok, I'll shut up now. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rory Larson [rlarson1 at UNL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:22 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I think perhaps the Dakotan term relates to counting in sign language where 'nine' leaves one finger bent over, i.e., "lying", in the palm of the hand. napc?ka is 'palm' and y?ka and w?ka are ?to lie? in Lakota and the so-called D-dialects respectively, so I don't think Sky's term is related to the napci- part of the Dakotan term, although I'm afraid I don't have anything better to offer except the obvious fact that it looks like English 'nine', [nayn] with a metathesis of the y and n. You?re probably right; that was a long shot. I understand from the old Otoe-Iowa Indian Language Book I that was put out in 1977 that there is a regular difference in certain endings between Otoe and Iowa. Where one ends in -nge the other ends in -nye. I?ve never been quite sure about how the first was pronounced, whether that is supposed to be an eng or a nasal vowel + /g/. nanye ought to belong to the -nye dialect, but checking the booklet that turns out to be Iowa, so I?m somewhat confused here. It sometimes seems to equate to Omaha nasal vowel + /g/, but I wasn?t sure if it was the only thing that ending could relate to. It?s still an interesting find, even if it does turn out to be English ?nine?. In this case, it would be a true borrowing, because it is thoroughly incorporated into an Otoe numerical sequence. Also, that metathesis of y and n shows that the word was forced into an Otoe phonological structure, rather than leaving it in plain English. Perhaps both the cumbersome, analytic terms used for ?nine? in so many North American languages, and the tendency to borrow the term, say something about how irregular the usage of it was? Rory 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). ________________________________ Edge Hill University Times Higher University of the Year - shortlisted 2007, 2010, 2011 www.edgehill.ac.uk ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 16 17:31:54 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:31:54 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370F80A@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks very much for this, Bob. It is clear that regarding 1dt person inflected Lakota verbs in yu- ya- etc. some restructuring went on. It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. See for example: mn?ga Engl. to crunch, as a horse does in eating corn CLASS v. p. 340 mnux v. also cont. of mnuga E.g. mnuxmn?ga CLASS v. red. of mnuga v. also mnuga v. also yamn?mnuga E.g. mnuxy?la ?in a crunching way CLASS adv. p. 340 Buechel does not show ablauting -A consistently, but the New Lakota Dictionary does, so we have mn?gA. Willem ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:38 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. I've had a couple of requests for my data sets from the various dictionaries, so here are the BL/BN/MN sets from 4 languages. Rory says that Omaha matches the other Dhegiha sets. These are nothing but the pertinent entries culled from lexica by Buechel, Quintero and Rankin for the 4 languages. As David points out, the Dakotan data show clearly how phonological restructuring takes place. Enjoy, Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of De Reuse, Willem [WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:43 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. My comments on Lakota below. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:33 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. Dakota Of approx. 71 lexemes in bl-/mn- all but 16 accent the initial syllable. Of those 16, 6 are reduplicanda, leaving only 10 out of 71 with 2nd syllable accent. 5 are examples of incorporated mni ?water?. Apparently incorporanda are unaccented or, at least, accent the second syllable, as in Willem?s study. My data are from Buechel because it's the only computerized Dakota dictionary I have. I'm sure Jan's dictionary would be an improvement. So I stand by my original statement, and it works for the most part except for some restructuring (but not much) in Lakota. Data provided on request. Bob: I am confused by the above. I know there are some nouns and stative verbs with bl- initial stem that stress the first syllable in Buechel (I count 9 in 1970 edition, the 2002 edition is less reliable on this). I also looked at the 1st person inflected verb forms starting in blu- and bla- in the paper Buechel dictionaries (1970 and 2002 editions) and if these forms are given, they are written without any stress mark, so for the overwhelming majority of bl- forms from Buechel, one cannot tell where the bla- and blu- are stressed. I then looked at the New Lakota Dictionary (Jan's), which has all the bla- and blu- verb forms with stress marks, and there you will see that they are stressed on (what I consider to be) the second syllable, i.e. the syllable following bla- or blu. I did not do a count, but at least the overwhelming majority is stressed that way. So one has to postulate massive restructuring in Lakota diachronically, and from a synchronic point of view one has to postulate that the Dakota Stress Rule treats bluCV and blaCV as two syllables rather than as three. Again, I don't mean to harp on this. Your real results for Dhegiha and all other Siouan look great, I am just making sure that we understand each other regarding the Lakota real results. Maybe we are counting blapples and bloranges! ;) Willem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 21:38:39 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <72663936A7BBD841B5FB12A49C95E4369DAA53A342@Server6-EX.omtribe.net> Message-ID: > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys :)). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 22:03:41 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:03:41 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FBC3C@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 a tut? x?pi OF a t?ti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 16 22:06:23 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:06:23 +0000 Subject: Re "ablaut" and "consonant final roots". Message-ID: As usual, I forgot my attachment. Here it is, as promised. Many of you have seen this draft before. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ABLAUT in MVS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162756 bytes Desc: ABLAUT in MVS.pdf URL: From WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU Mon Sep 16 23:12:31 2013 From: WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU (De Reuse, Willem) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:12:31 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC69@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 a tut? x?pi OF a t?ti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 17 00:21:03 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:21:03 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC12@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw ?no-wunk? as the Hoc?k term for eight, my first thought was the OM term ?nuwe/nowe? and how the listed ?nope? (as listed in Long?s list for Hoc?k ?two?) could shift to ?nowe? (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my ?10 minus 2? idea. It?s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That?s why I try to keep my ideas tentative J. I see what you?re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The ?gre? you mention makes me think of the ?agr?? that is used when you pass ten (IE ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? for eleven, ?grebr? agr? nuwe? for twelve, etc.). Now I don?t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where ?agr? danyi? could somehow shift into ?grerabri? (assuming ?gre-? is related to ?agr??). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? (11) omits the ?grebr?? and just uses the ?agr? iy?nki.? But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and ?sagwe? moved in somehow, I?m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the ?partial quinary? counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 17 02:23:17 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:23:17 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: <09DD308CEC0051438A2B5FDD1A266482591FBCCE@BLUPRD0112MB643.prod.exchangelabs.com> Message-ID: Yes. It worked so well that I suspect Dakota DID loss final in accented -e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 a tut? x?pi OF a t?ti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Tue Sep 17 02:26:29 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:26:29 +0000 Subject: BL accent patterns. The real results. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Make that UNaccented e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "Rankin, Robert L." wrote: Yes. It worked so well that I suspect Dakota DID loss final in accented -e. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "De Reuse, Willem" wrote: Thanks Bob. And thanks for that paper. The diachronic analysis is great. And of course this -A affix was an invention of synchronic phonologists, but it was clever, wasn't it? Willem, chronic sinner and phonologist. ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Rankin, Robert L. [rankin at KU.EDU] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:03 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: BL accent patterns. The real results. > It is good to notice, though, that some of the disyllabic stems stressed on the first syllable end in the ablauting -A, so according to the Dakota Stress Rule, they are stressed on a monosyllabic stem, since the Dakota Stress Rule applies, if I remember correctly, before the ablauting -A is added to a monosyllabic stem. Yes, here the synchronic and diachronic analyses differ materially. Diachronically, there is no such thing as "the ablauting vowel" and consequent consonant-final stems. This was an invention of synchronic phonologists who needed some way to explain Dakotan accentual patterns. What really happened in those cases is that the first vowel in the so-called "consonant-final stems" was historically long and, therefore, accented. The second vowel (called the "ablauting vowel" and written with cap -A) was actually -e. This short -e was subsequently simply replaced by the vowel that began the following suffix or enclitic, normally -a. I don't know at the moment whether the original unstressed final -e was lost in Dakotan (actually leaving a consonant-final stem) or whether the -e was just replaced by the V1+V2 ==> V2 rule so common in Siouan languages. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence either way. Hochunk lost final -e in most environments and Dakota may have shared that change areally. Hard to say. But if you look at cognate sets with the so-called "ablauting vowel", you can see immediately that, what we thought was an epenthetic vowel with a "consonant final root" was really short-e with a long root vowel. The following examples are from a paper on "ablaut" that I wrote and will attach herewith. I hope our email programs don't mess up the columnar formatting too much: make marks ripe shallow PSi *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 a tut? x?pi OF a t?ti SP seep Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Sep 17 07:51:25 2013 From: wipamankere at HOTMAIL.COM (Iren Hartmann) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:51:25 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hooca=?utf-8?Q?=CC=A8k?= In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC62370FC12@EXCH10-MBX-05.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hi Sky & Bob, I had already posted what number nine was in Hooca?k before this question came up, so I?m a bit confused. Anyway, here are for your reference numbers 1 through 10, 20 & 30 in Hooca?k 1 hiz?a?kiira [= one(hiz?a?)-only(kiira)] 2 nu?u?p 3 taani? 4 joop 5 saaca? 6 hakewe 7 s?aagowi? 8 haruwa?k 9 hiz?a?kicu?s?gu?ni? [= hiz?a?(one)-ki-cu?u?s?gu?ni?(be.without)] 10 kerepa?na?iz?a? [= kerepa?na?(10)-hiz?a?(one)] 20 kerepa?na?nu?u?p (2 10s) 30 kerepa?na?taani? (3 10s) etc. Those numbers from the old source you cited, Sky, seem to be somewhat corrupted. Best, Iren Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Tue Sep 17 11:43:02 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:43:02 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hooca=?UTF-8?Q?=CC=A8k?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you! I?d done a quick search to see if someone did post the Hooc?k term for nine and didn?t see one but a double-check after your mention of it shows I must have flew right over it. My apologies J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Iren Hartmann Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:51 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. No. 1-10 in Hooca?k Hi Sky & Bob, I had already posted what number nine was in Hooca?k before this question came up, so I?m a bit confused. Anyway, here are for your reference numbers 1 through 10, 20 & 30 in Hooca?k 1 hiz?a?kiira [= one(hiz?a?)-only(kiira)] 2 nu?u?p 3 taani? 4 joop 5 saaca? 6 hakewe 7 s?aagowi? 8 haruwa?k 9 hiz?a?kicu?s?gu?ni? [= hiz?a?(one)-ki-cu?u?s?gu?ni?(be.without)] 10 kerepa?na?iz?a? [= kerepa?na?(10)-hiz?a?(one)] 20 kerepa?na?nu?u?p (2 10s) 30 kerepa?na?taani? (3 10s) etc. Those numbers from the old source you cited, Sky, seem to be somewhat corrupted. Best, Iren _____ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:38:39 +0000 From: rankin at KU.EDU Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:06:20 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:06:20 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <000f01ceb33b$cbc6aa40$6353fec0$@com> Message-ID: I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. GLOSS[ eight CH[ gre?r??br? RR Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe?-r??wr? OM[ ppe??b?? C PN[ ppe???b?? RR KS[ ppe?y??bl? OS[ hpe????br? QU[ pped??bn? ProtoSE[ *pa-ra?n? OF[ p??ta?n? DS-328b OF[ pA?tAn? Swanton 1909-485 TU[ pa?l?n (N); pala?ni, pala?li, pala?niq H TU[ p?lan? Hw TU[ pel???k? Sapir TU[ balai?n Fracht TU[ bila?:kh, bil??:kh Mithun OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for this numeral is ?three?, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to {d????}, not {*ra?br?}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ?three?) only in OVS and DH. Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ?eight? is currently reconstructible. Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:11:17 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:11:17 +0000 Subject: 'seven'. Message-ID: Here are the cognate sets for 'seven'. GLOSS[ seven 1 PSI[ *?a?k??pa OTHREC[ *sak-ma W-175 PCH[ *??hpua < possible *??kupVhV (see discussion below) CR[ s?hpua ?seven? GG-55, DEC-82 HI[ ??hpua ?seven? J MA[ k??pa ?seven? C PDA[ *?ak?w? LA[ ??kow? ~ ?ak?w? ?seven? C DA[ ??kow? ~ ?ak?w? ?seven? R-440 PWC[ *?a?k- CH[ Otoe: s???hm? ?seven? C CH[ Iowa: s?hm? ~ ??hm? ?seven? RR CH[ Otoe: s??hm? ~ s?hm? ?seven? RR WI[ ?aag?ow? ?seven? KM-2900 PSE[ *sa?ku?m? OF[ ?f??kumi ?f??kum?? ?seven? DS-323b OF[ ?f?kumi ?fA?kum?? ?seven? SW-1909:485 TU[ ?sa?k??m(?) ~ ?sa?k??m(?) ?saagom (N), sagome?i, sa?go?mi?, sagom??k? ?seven? H. TU[ ?sak?m ?s?g?m? ?seven? Hw. TU[ sak?? ?seven? Sapir TU[ sag?m ?three, seven? Frachtenberg COM[ Like several other numbers, ?seven? is difficult to reconstruct with certainty. The available forms may represent two stages of development. The less transparent found in CR/HI, MA, CH (three subgroups) may be older. An approximate reconstruction might be {*?a?ku?pa} or {*?a?ku?p?}. DA and WI show an apparently remodeled late form clearly based on {*?a?k-} ?hand? and {-w?} ?one?, based in turn on the hand signal for ?seven? in the sign language. The second fist (closed) represents ?six? and the same with the index finger extended ?seven?, i.e., ?fist + one?. The {-o-} is interpretable as ?locative? but may just be a relic of an original, unanalizable {-u-}, folk etymologized as ?locative {o-}?. The reanalysed form would presumably have diffused through parts of MVS. DH and BI innovate, using an entirely non-cognate, quinary term. The OVS forms look primitive, not remodeled, for two reasons: a) OVS quite regularly shows {*? < **?} in ?hand?, while ?seven? has only {*s}, and b) the {*w?} root, ?one 2?, seems to be restricted to MVS (and possibly MA); OVS shows only ?one 1?. Also, shared remodeling in the neighboring DA and WI seems quite ordinary; if the OVS forms are following the same pattern, then it would presumably be a convergence, rather than a shared innovation, and we find that more exceptional. Another possible argument has to do with the {*w?} root itself: this root is one of those where the {*w} does not nasalize to {m}. In CH and OVS, however, the word for ?seven? does exhibit this nasalization. We think the DA alternants with first syllable stress are due to contamination with ?six?, presumably from serial counting. This is one of the terms in which TU |s|, instead of the expected |*?|, corresponds to PSI|*?|. The two long vowels plus the MA form suggest that the word was morphemically complex to begin with. We know that CR/HI |-ua| represents loss of an intervocallic glide -- typically |h|, possibly |w|. We also know that CR/HI |hp| results from a cluster, here most likely |*kp|. That enables us to back up from the attested forms to something like |*?akpuha|. The last steps come from the reasonably well-attested rightward vowel transposition, which generally swaps a |u| for some vowel in the succeeding syllable. The exchanged vowel has evidently been lost. Restoring it gives us |*?akVpuha|, from which undoing rightward vowel transposition gives us |*?akupVha|. The nasality of the PSI final vowel remains unresolved. == GLOSS[ seven 2 PDH[ *hp??-r?pa hpe?+'two' PN[ pp????ba ~ pp??ba (fast) ?seven? So. Ponca RR OP[ pp???ba ?seven? C KS[ pp?:y?ba ?seven? RR OS[ hp?:?pa ?seven? RR QU[ pp?:n?ba ?seven? RR BI[ ?n??pa-hudi ?n??pahud?? ?two? + ?stem, bone? DS-238b COM[ Cf. ?eight?. In DH and BI the counting system has shifted independently to a partial quinary pattern (similar to neighboring central Algonquian and Muskogean systems). DH {*hpe?-} is unidentified, and apparently unattested outside the counting words. Initial {hC} always indicates a lost initial syllable in DH, so the stem might conceivably be {n?p?} ?hand? (i.e., the ?second hand? in counting, cf. the use of {*?ak-} ?hand? in ?seven 1?), or it might be some other term; at this point it is impossible to recover the missing syllable. BI ?n??pahud?? ?two? + ?stem, bone? (DS-238b) shows a morpholexically dissimilar but semantically parallel quinary development. The PDH and BI forms are not cognate. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Wed Sep 18 23:13:01 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:13:01 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <000f01ceb33b$cbc6aa40$6353fec0$@com> Message-ID: We haven't identified the gre?- prefix in Chiwere 'eight', but I don't think it's related to agriN 'to sit on'. That's a different root. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Sky Campbell [sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw ?no-wunk? as the Hoc?k term for eight, my first thought was the OM term ?nuwe/nowe? and how the listed ?nope? (as listed in Long?s list for Hoc?k ?two?) could shift to ?nowe? (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my ?10 minus 2? idea. It?s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That?s why I try to keep my ideas tentative :). I see what you?re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The ?gre? you mention makes me think of the ?agr?? that is used when you pass ten (IE ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? for eleven, ?grebr? agr? nuwe? for twelve, etc.). Now I don?t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where ?agr? danyi? could somehow shift into ?grerabri? (assuming ?gre-? is related to ?agr??). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? (11) omits the ?grebr?? and just uses the ?agr? iy?nki.? But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and ?sagwe? moved in somehow, I?m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the ?partial quinary? counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes :). Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys :)). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET Wed Sep 18 23:24:32 2013 From: pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET (David Costa) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:24:32 -0700 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC623718C2A@EXCH10-DRMBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I know it's not all that important, but in the oldest Miami-Illinois records, "eight" is para?re. By the late 1700s, it's pala?ni in all dialects. Dave > I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. > > GLOSS[ eight > > CH[ gre?r??br? RR > > Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe?-r??wr? > OM[ ppe??b?? C > PN[ ppe???b?? RR > KS[ ppe?y??bl? > OS[ hpe????br? > QU[ pped??bn? > > ProtoSE[ *pa-ra?n? > > OF[ p??ta?n? DS-328b > OF[ pA?tAn? Swanton 1909-485 > > TU[ pa?l?n (N); pala?ni, pala?li, pala?niq H > TU[ p?lan? Hw > TU[ pel???k? Sapir > TU[ balai?n Fracht > TU[ bila?:kh, bil??:kh Mithun > > OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) > > COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for > this numeral is ?three?, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to > {d????}, not {*ra?br?}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it > occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ?three?) only in OVS and DH. > Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from > an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ?eight? is currently reconstructible. > > Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. > > Bob > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Thu Sep 19 00:34:32 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:34:32 -0500 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: <5E87B4AFA471B543884CD3128A7C8CC623718C79@EXCH10-DRMBX-01.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Wow, quite a lot to take in (referring to the other recent emails as well). I haven?t seen a sense of ?to sit on? with the term ?agr?.? The sense I am familiar with is along the lines of ?over? which is what got me to thinking about the idea of it being related to that prefix ?gre-? when you mentioned the quinary counting system. I was curious if that sense of ?over? would have applied 5 digits earlier with that counting system and that maybe for some reason the term for eight was the last remnant of it. But even with the sense of ?to sit on? you mentioned, it is used with the current semi-quinary/semi-decimal counting system when the digits ?roll over.? I am curious about the sense of ?to sit on? with that term, though. Coming at it from an OM point of view, I can see how the prefix ?a-? would indicate ?on? but haven?t seen anything along the lines of ?gr?? to mean sit. The closest thing I can think of that sounds close to ?gr?? is the verb ?gri? which is ?to return home? (no idea if they are related or not). Is that sense a general Siouan concept for that term or is it perhaps from the Proto-Siouan you mentioned in the other email? Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:13 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. We haven't identified the gre?- prefix in Chiwere 'eight', but I don't think it's related to agriN 'to sit on'. That's a different root. Bob _____ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Sky Campbell [sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:21 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. Bob, Thanks for the info! When I first saw ?no-wunk? as the Hoc?k term for eight, my first thought was the OM term ?nuwe/nowe? and how the listed ?nope? (as listed in Long?s list for Hoc?k ?two?) could shift to ?nowe? (the p to w shift that was mentioned before) and therefore be shoehorned into my ?10 minus 2? idea. It?s amazing what concessions you allow for when they fit what you want LOL. That?s why I try to keep my ideas tentative J. I see what you?re talking about as far as a quinary system. The prefix you are talking about has me curious about how the counting works. The ?gre? you mention makes me think of the ?agr?? that is used when you pass ten (IE ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? for eleven, ?grebr? agr? nuwe? for twelve, etc.). Now I don?t know much about quinary counting systems but the math side of me can see how this MAY work as you describe where ?agr? danyi? could somehow shift into ?grerabri? (assuming ?gre-? is related to ?agr??). One problem with this though is that a contracted version of ?grebr? agr? iy?nki? (11) omits the ?grebr?? and just uses the ?agr? iy?nki.? But that would be a possible formula for six according to what I understand to be the basic quinary system. But if that form of six is lost in antiquity and ?sagwe? moved in somehow, I?m guessing the idea of starting over every five digits could still remain and become the ?partial quinary? counting system you are talking about. Just some thoughts. I get into this stuff a little too much sometimes J. Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L. Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:39 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. > I?ve been poking around a bit about the number nine and so far I haven?t found anything to back up the possibility of ?grerabri? being related to ?grebr?.? So I thought I?d try to see what Hoc?k has for this. Note that I have almost no experience with Hoc?k so this is very iffy. But I found something interesting (which may be old news to you guys J). I'm going to leave the Hochunk numerals to the Hochunk specialists, although I suspect your "one-not" analysis in terms of finger counting is correct. GrerabriN '8's not related to grebr? '10'. It's related to rabriN '3'. 'Seven' should be grenoNba, or something close to that, if memory serves. Systems in which 6 through 10 contain the numbers 1 though 5 are called quinary (or five-base) counting systems. In Dhegiha and Chiwere systems the words for 'seven' and 'eight' usually contain the words for 'two' and 'three' respectively, with a prefix. The prefix is ppe:- in Dhegiha and gre:- in Chiwere. Both prefixes have long vowels. So Dhegiha and Chiwere systems are partial quinary counting systems. This leaves 'nine' odd-man-out, and various Siouan languages deal with it in different ways, as we've seen. Bob I?ve been going through Maximilian and Long?s Otoe language lists lately and thought I?d look there for some Hoc?k numbers to see if my idea can be backed up there. Here is what Long has for nine: jhink-ich-os-co-ne Nothing at all like ?sanke.? So based on what?s being said here, I decided to look at what he has for one: jhing-ke-de Looks to me like ?one? is definitely part of ?nine? here. I?m not sure what ?(i)ch-o? is doing in there but the ?s-co-ne? sure looks like ?skunyi? (not) to me. So I?m wondering if this is ?one ? not ? (doing whatever)?. An EXTREMELY tentative thought I am having right now is maybe the (i)ch-o might be something along the lines of ?ah-kutch-ah? which Henry Merrell has as ?the other side? (that was his spelling as well). If so, that would be ?one ? not ? the other side? which perhaps might refer to the idea of holding one finger down on one hand. But like I said, that is EXTREMELY tentative. So I thought, ?Ooh! Maybe eight follows suit!? But I was stopped cold with eight being: no-wunk I have absolute no idea what is going on there. It is nothing like ?grerabri.? I can see how the rest of the numbers match Otoe-Missouria (with the obligatory shifts and differences, of course) but not eight (or nine). So now I am wondering if Hoc?k kept the original form of nine but picked up their eight from somewhere else. Has anyone else seen or worked with this form of eight before? Are there any theories as to its origins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 19 00:41:45 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:41:45 +0000 Subject: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Every little bit is interesting and helpful. Thanks Dave. Bob ________________________________ From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of David Costa [pankihtamwa at EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:24 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Number 'nine' in Chiwere. I know it's not all that important, but in the oldest Miami-Illinois records, "eight" is para?re. By the late 1700s, it's pala?ni in all dialects. Dave I need to add a little to my earlier comments on 'seven' and 'eight'. Chiwere only shows the partial quinary traces in 'eight', not 'seven'. And they seem to have borrowed it from Omaha. Below is the comparative dictionary entry for 'eight', and it shows the Omaha influence. GLOSS[ eight CH[ gre?r??br? RR Proto-Dhegiha[ *hpe?-r??wr? OM[ ppe??b?? C PN[ ppe???b?? RR KS[ ppe?y??bl? OS[ hpe????br? QU[ pped??bn? ProtoSE[ *pa-ra?n? OF[ p??ta?n? DS-328b OF[ pA?tAn? Swanton 1909-485 TU[ pa?l?n (N); pala?ni, pala?li, pala?niq H TU[ p?lan? Hw TU[ pel???k? Sapir TU[ balai?n Fracht TU[ bila?:kh, bil??:kh Mithun OTHLGS[ Miami: palani (with variant forms recorded.) COM[ The CH pattern is almost certainly borrowed from DH, as the basis for this numeral is ?three?, which, in CH, has undergone normal development to {d????}, not {*ra?br?}. This term is probably not PSI in origin as it occurs in the proper phonological form (*hpV + ?three?) only in OVS and DH. Its presence in Illinois Algonquian (Rankin, 1985) shows that it spread from an OVS dialect. No actual PSI term for ?eight? is currently reconstructible. Treatment of 'seven' follows in a separate message. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Thu Sep 19 01:13:51 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 01:13:51 +0000 Subject: Teens in Chiwere. Message-ID: The meaning 'over, on top of' would be derived from the original 'sit on' meaning. I haven't checked Jimm's dictionary to see if Chiwere has the direct descendant, agr? 'sit on'. Nor do I know about Hochunk. The original "teen" formative was closer to ake or aki, but Chiwere and Dhegiha both seem to use 'sit on' instead. The a- of agr? is the locative 'on, upon' and gr? is the verb root. It comes out ag?? in Omaha and Ponca, akn? in Quapaw and al? in Kansa and Osage. It doesn't appear to be related to -gri or -gre at all. The Chiwere details would have to come from you and Jimm. Sorry about misleading you earlier about 'seven' containing the word for 'two'. That's true of Dhegiha languages but not of Chiwere. My 74 year old memory failed me for a moment. But you have the correct cognate sets now. Bob > I haven?t seen a sense of ?to sit on? with the term ?agr?.? The sense I am familiar with is along the lines of ?over? which is what got me to thinking about the idea of it being related to that prefix ?gre-? when you mentioned the quinary counting system. I was curious if that sense of ?over? would have applied 5 digits earlier with that counting system and that maybe for some reason the term for eight was the last remnant of it. But even with the sense of ?to sit on? you mentioned, it is used with the current semi-quinary/semi-decimal counting system when the digits ?roll over.? I am curious about the sense of ?to sit on? with that term, though. Coming at it from an OM point of view, I can see how the prefix ?a-? would indicate ?on? but haven?t seen anything along the lines of ?gr?? to mean sit. The closest thing I can think of that sounds close to ?gr?? is the verb ?gri? which is ?to return home? (no idea if they are related or not). Is that sense a general Siouan concept for that term or is it perhaps from the Proto-Siouan you mentioned in the other email? Sky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sschwart at PRINCETON.EDU Thu Sep 19 20:25:35 2013 From: sschwart at PRINCETON.EDU (Saul Schwartz) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:25:35 -0600 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" Message-ID: Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hoc?k? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the *Dodge County* [WI] *Citizen*, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the *History of Dodge County, Wisconsin* (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (*The Missionary Herald*, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM Thu Sep 19 23:01:30 2013 From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM (Jimm G. GoodTracks) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:01:30 -0500 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. Elaine ithge eswena. From: Saul Schwartz Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Hoc?k/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hoc?k? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the Dodge County [WI] Citizen, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the History of Dodge County, Wisconsin (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (The Missionary Herald, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.marino at USASK.CA Sat Sep 21 07:20:20 2013 From: mary.marino at USASK.CA (Mary C Marino) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:20:20 -0600 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jimm -- I have been following these discussions with great attention, but this one has me completely at a loss -- could you help us out with this? Best Mary On 19/09/2013 5:01 PM, Jimm G. GoodTracks wrote: > Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. > Elaine ithge eswena. > > *From:* Saul Schwartz > *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM > *To:* SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu > *Subject:* Hoc?k/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" > > Hello, > > An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation > of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this > list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th > century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is > "Wiscopawis." Sound Hoc?k? Any suggestions for a translation? More > information below. > > All best, > Saul > > The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a > newspaper, the /Dodge County/ [WI] /Citizen/, some time before > 1880. The article was reprinted in the /History of Dodge County, > Wisconsin/ (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: > > "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being > removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, > Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his > tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the > great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." > > Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to > Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a > committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, > Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (/The Missionary Herald/, > v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM Sat Sep 21 12:46:35 2013 From: sky at LEGENDREADERS.COM (Sky Campbell) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 07:46:35 -0500 Subject: Hoc=?UTF-8?Q?=C4=85k/Winnebago_?=name? "Wiscopawis" In-Reply-To: <523D48B4.1000705@usask.ca> Message-ID: I thought I?d let my program take a crack at this name and have it swap out certain characters as I understand how they ?shift? (b/p to w, s to th, etc. and vice versa). Note that I also found a bug in my program that I?ll have to fix. I wanted to swap out the ?s? for both ?th? and ?x? as well as keep the ?s? (IE s ? th, s ? x, s ? s) but it looks like I have to look at my algorithm because it doesn?t want to handle more than two swaps for a single character. So for now, these results are missing the ?s? character. But they may still help. Be warned that there is a lot of gobbledygook to wade through but that is to be expected J. I?ve also never had an output crank out this many results before. Hopefully at least a few of them will give you guys a lead J. Here are the matches I inputted into my program (I can edit, add, or remove matches if someone thinks it will help): w/p w/w s/th s/x s/s p/w o/u o/o c/k c/g Those gave me these results: pithgowapith pithgowapix pithgowawith pithgowawix pithguwapith pithguwapix pithguwawith pithguwawix pithkowapith pithkowapix pithkowawith pithkowawix pithkuwapith pithkuwapix pithkuwawith pithkuwawix pixgowapith pixgowapix pixgowawith pixgowawix pixguwapith pixguwapix pixguwawith pixguwawix pixkowapith pixkowapix pixkowawith pixkowawix pixkuwapith pixkuwapix pixkuwawith pixkuwawix withgowapith withgowapix withgowawith withgowawix withguwapith withguwapix withguwawith withguwawix withkowapith withkowapix withkowawith withkowawix withkuwapith withkuwapix withkuwawith withkuwawix wixgowapith wixgowapix wixgowawith wixgowawix wixguwapith wixguwapix wixguwawith wixguwawix wixkowapith wixkowapix wixkowawith wixkowawix wixkuwapith wixkuwapix wixkuwawith wixkuwawix Sky From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Mary C Marino Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:20 AM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Re: Hoc?k/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Jimm -- I have been following these discussions with great attention, but this one has me completely at a loss -- could you help us out with this? Best Mary On 19/09/2013 5:01 PM, Jimm G. GoodTracks wrote: Hintado, Hochanga wan^shige iyanki iswanxesdun ke, iswahunge ke. Elaine ithge eswena. From: Saul Schwartz Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:25 PM To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu Subject: Hoc?k/Winnebago name? "Wiscopawis" Hello, An archaeologist colleague of mine working on the cultural affiliation of Effigy Mound sites in Wisconsin asked me to see if anyone on this list could help with a name associated with a possible mid-19th century Winnebago oral tradition of mound building. The name is "Wiscopawis." Sound Hoc?k? Any suggestions for a translation? More information below. All best, Saul The name is in a letter by Rev. Silas Hawley that was published in a newspaper, the Dodge County [WI] Citizen, some time before 1880. The article was reprinted in the History of Dodge County, Wisconsin (1880), pp. 452-453. The full quote, from the reprint, is: "Wiscopawis, chief of the Winnebagoes, prior to the tribes being removed to their western reservation, in conversation with M. Shafer, Esq., of Beaver Dam, told him the spring was much prized by his tribe." Earlier in the article, Hawley referred to "Much-kaw, the great medicine chief of the Winnebagoes." Shafer (1820-?) was a "general repairer of jewelry" who moved to Beaver Dam in 1854. Hawley (1815-1888) is listed as having been on a committee concerned with Presbyterian "missions to the Dakotas, Ojibwas, Senecas, Tuscaroras, and Abenaquis" (The Missionary Herald, v. 51, n. 10, p. 295, 1855). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rankin at KU.EDU Mon Sep 30 03:18:48 2013 From: rankin at KU.EDU (Rankin, Robert L.) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 03:18:48 +0000 Subject: Fwd: [Histling-l] Job announcement Santa Barbara In-Reply-To: <0B71F0A23F584D30C375462F@[192.168.7.112]> Message-ID: Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Histling-l] Job announcement Santa Barbara From: Marianne Mithun To: histling-l CC: The Linguistics Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a linguist specializing in typologically-informed field linguistics. For primary consideration, submit materials by November 12, 2013. The appointment will be a tenure-track position at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2014. Candidates must have expertise in the analysis of linguistic structure, a theoretical specialization in one or more subfields of linguistics, experience in language documentation and description, and research experience with one or more languages or language families. We are especially interested in candidates with expertise in technical fieldwork methodologies, work with lesser-known languages, and/or an understanding of the roles of diachrony and contact in shaping language. The ideal candidate will have the potential to link the theoretical implications of his or her research to other sub-disciplines in linguistics, and to interact with colleagues and students across disciplinary boundaries at UCSB. The ability to engage with the departmental focus on functional and usage-based approaches to linguistic explanation is essential. Candidates must have demonstrated excellence in teaching and will be expected to teach a range of graduate and undergraduate courses in general linguistics and field linguistics, including a year-long graduate field methods sequence. The Ph.D. in linguistics or a related field is required. The degree is normally required by the time of appointment. The position will remain open until filled. Please submit all materials via the online UC Recruit System at: https://recruit.ap.ucsb.edu/apply/JPF00205 No paper applications please. Inquiries may be addressed to the Search Committee at search-linguistics at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Interviews will be conducted either in person at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting (January 2-5, 2014) or via Skype video conferencing; the two formats will be given equivalent consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity and is especially interested in candidates who can contribute to the diversity and excellence of the academic community through research, teaching and service. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: