<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
<DIV></DIV>From: <I>Koontz John E <John.Koontz@colorado.edu></I><BR>Reply-To: <I>siouan@lists.colorado.edu</I><BR>To: <I>siouan@lists.colorado.edu</I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: Tomahittan?</I><BR>Date: <I>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:18:02 -0600 (MDT)</I><BR>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, R. Rankin wrote:<BR>> > No. There is no locative prefix with the shape to- in Siouan. Some<BR>> > people are obsessed with "big turkeys" and also analyze Mosopelea as<BR>> > 'big turkey'. What is it about turkeys?<BR>><BR>>In regard to a locative to- I was thinking of Dhegiha *to 'hither' (or<BR>>something like that) - part of the du/s^u/gu series in Omaha-Ponca, for<BR>>example. This occurs with articles, postpositions, and verbs as a leading<BR>>element. It's usually more of a
nigh demonstrative rather than a<BR>>locative, but Wes Jones has shown that demonstratives tend to occur as<BR>>locatives in Siouan contexts. This is definitely streching matters. I<BR>>wonder if the anonymous etymologizer might have been thinking of *o-<BR>>'in(to)' as a verbal prefix.<BR>><BR>>Neither *to- nor *o- really fits the syntax of the form. I'd expect *ma-<BR>>to be outside of *o-, and any *to functioning as a locative to be final.<BR>>A given language might well do surprising things with its morphology, but<BR>>in guess-work like this I'd rather not assume surprising morphology. I<BR>>tend to tolerate surprising conclusions better than surprising<BR>>assumptions!<BR>><BR>>If the form has a very reasonable Algonquian etymology there's really very<BR>>little reason to prefer the Siouan one
over it. If it has neither then it<BR>>would be wiser withhold judgement.<BR>><BR>>I'd have thought that the -y- in Monyton went with the Moni- part?<BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>