<div><SPAN class=largetext>The Lakota term used for a prayer pipe is <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">cannu'npa. </SPAN><BR><BR>It is my understanding from Lakota friends that this is literally translated as "two wood," ( <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">can </SPAN>meaning "wood," and <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">nunpa </SPAN>meaning "two"). <BR><BR>The literal name refers to the very early method of making a pipestem by splitting a tree branch lengthwise, hollowing out the center, and gluing it back together for a finished pipestem. This was done by very early Lakota peoples in making the long ceremonial pipestems, and the name has been carried on ever since, even though many smaller personal prayer pipes are now commonly made from a single piece of wood. </SPAN></div> <div><SPAN class=largetext></SPAN> </div> <div><SPAN class=largetext>Hope this helps,</SPAN></div> <div><SPAN class=largetext>Jonathan</div> <div><BR></SPAN><BR><BR><B><I>REGINA PUSTET
<pustetrm@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV><EM>I wonder if this - a bit weird - construction is due to the fact(?) that <BR>it is a verbalization derived from the noun _chaNnu(n)pa_ - pipe/calumet <BR>which literally has nothing to do with 'to smoke' rather than being a <BR>compound meaning 'two-woods' (chaN-nuNpa), i.e. 'bowl and stem'. Or - as <BR>though pretty obvious and convincing - would you call this 'folk etymology'?<BR>If so, and there actually is an (original!) verb for 'to smoke' _uN'pa_ <BR>(-> uNmuN'pa, uNnuN'pa, uNkuN'papi), what then is the meaning of _chaN-_ <BR>forming another existing verb for 'to smoke'? Why then (and for what <BR>reason at all) this compound(?) verb has an additional -n- inserted <BR>(chaNnuNpa - to smoke/s/he smokes)?? Consequently forming chaNnuNmuNpa, <BR>chaNnuNnuNpa etc.). I'm quite hesitant assuming that _uNpa_ was
first in <BR>the sense of egg and hen.<BR></EM></DIV> <DIV>Hard to tell. My instinctive feeling is that uNpa 'to smoke' is the basic form, and chaNnuNpa 'to smoke' is derived. This is supported precisely by the 'irregular' m/n-inflection (yes, I'm using the term again) of thís verb which should be ancient because irregular paradigms, in general, are older than regular ones.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't really believe in the chaN 'wood' plus nuNpa 'two' etymology because what we're dealing with here materially -- which was probaly the same in precontact times -- is a piece of wood and a piece of rock, rather than two pieces of wood. But who knows about the smoking habits in the Americas before recorded history. Or about the exact meaning of the historical precursor of chaN. But I wouldn't deny that chaN 'wood' might be involved here. Etymologically, my analysis would add up to chaN 'wood' plus uNpa 'to smoke', and I have to admit that I don't know
either how to account for the missing n.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Regina</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><BR></EM><BR><B><I>"Alfred W. Tüting" <ti@fa-kuan.muc.de></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">>> I don't understand.'I smoke' is, as far as I remember, chanumuNpa, <BR>chanu - m -uNpa; how is that reduplicated? The second person<BR>looks reduplicated (chanu-nuNpa), but I think that's just the "n" <BR>pronoun appearing where it's supposed to go. <<<<<BR><BR><BR>> The third person of ‘to smoke’ is chaNnuNpa. If the verb were a <BR>regular m-/n-verb, the third person would have to be chaNnu’uNpa to get <BR>first and second person chaNnumuNpa and chaNnunuNpa. We could actually <BR>posit chaNnu’uNpa as basic root and analyze the third person as a <BR>contracted form, but still, we need that contraction rule which moves <BR>this verb a little farther away
from being a ‘regular’ m-/n-verb. The <BR>transitive version uNpa ‘to smoke (a pipe etc.)’ has first person muNpa, <BR>second person nuNpa and is therefore a ‘regular’ m/n-verb. <<<BR><BR><BR>I wonder if this - a bit weird - construction is due to the fact(?) that <BR>it is a verbalization derived from the noun _chaNnu(n)pa_ - pipe/calumet <BR>which literally has nothing to do with 'to smoke' rather than being a <BR>compound meaning 'two-woods' (chaN-nuNpa), i.e. 'bowl and stem'. Or - as <BR>though pretty obvious and convincing - would you call this 'folk etymology'?<BR>If so, and there actually is an (original!) verb for 'to smoke' _uN'pa_ <BR>(-> uNmuN'pa, uNnuN'pa, uNkuN'papi), what then is the meaning of _chaN-_ <BR>forming another existing verb for 'to smoke'? Why then (and for what <BR>reason at all) this compound(?) verb has an additional -n- inserted <BR>(chaNnuNpa - to smoke/s/he smokes)?? Consequently forming chaNnuNmuNpa, <BR>chaNnuNnuNpa
etc.). I'm quite hesitant assuming that _uNpa_ was first in <BR>the sense of egg and hen.<BR>I'd easily imagine that in this case the verb (to smoke) might have <BR>derived from the noun chaNnupa. Cf. German Pfeife - pfeifen (pipe - 'to <BR>pipe' = to wistle).<BR><BR>I'd be interested in your knowledgeable opinions.<BR><BR><BR>Alfred<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <div>__________________________________________________<BR>Do You Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <BR>http://mail.yahoo.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="COLOR: red; FONT-STYLE: italic"><STRONG><FONT color=#0000bf>Be a friend...</FONT></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><SPAN style="COLOR: red; FONT-STYLE: italic"><FONT color=#c00000>Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,</FONT></SPAN></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#000000><SPAN style="COLOR: red; FONT-STYLE: italic"><FONT color=#c00000>go to:</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></STRONG><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><A href="http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org">http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org</A></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com