<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Lakota chaNnuNpa</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>It's around elsewhere. The verb 'to drink' is used for smoking tobacco in several Eastern Algonquian languages. For example, in Massachusett-Narragansett, the word for 'tobacco' literally means 'what one drinks'.<BR>
<BR>
Dave Costa<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><I>> there's a root iN 'to suck, to smoke', often used with tobacco-forms <BR>
</I> <BR>
<BR>
Well, whaddya know? I came across Biloxi "yaniksoni iNni," (smoke a pipe) where iNni looks the same as the verb "to drink." I was wondering why they would "drink" a tobacco pipe, but now it seems this is a different verb root altogether? (Although I suppose some relation could be made between sucking and drinking?)<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="1"><BR>
<BR>
<I>Koontz John E <John.Koontz@colorado.edu></I> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1">On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, REGINA PUSTET wrote:<BR>
> This m-/n-class is getting more and more exciting. I'm wondering how<BR>
> this pattern arose and if it is old or more recent. Do other Siouan<BR>
> languages have similar patterns? I think I heard that there is a<BR>
> connection with the stative paradigm ma-/ni-. How robust is this<BR>
> hypothesis? Once we know more about the history of the class, we might<BR>
> know more about its degree of (ir)regularity.<BR>
<BR>
These m/n/0 inflected forms have been discussed extensively on the list<BR>
(see the recent discussion of 'wound'). They are fairly well distributed<BR>
and the stems subject to the pattern are generally the same small set.<BR>
Hence the delightfulness of 'wound' participating in it in Winnebago.<BR>
<BR>
The 'tobacco' and 'pipe' sets are full of them, and these sets are<BR>
discussed in the CSD in copious detail, because 'tobacco' and<BR>
'kinnikinnick' forms are so clearly loanwords in Siouan. The paradigm is<BR>
somewhat irregular in its developments, even without the oddities<BR>
in 'c^haNnuNpa.<BR>
<BR>
Dhegiha has m/z^/0. I explain that to my satisfaction in the 'wound'<BR>
discussion. I think the Dakota second persons are visiting from the<BR>
nasalized r-stems.<BR>
<BR>
These m/n/0 forms are not statives, though the paradigm is frequently<BR>
misunderstood in this light in Dakotan work. I won't say we know "all"<BR>
about the class, but we know a great deal, and spend most of our time now<BR>
arguing small details, cf. the 'wound' discussion.<BR>
<BR>
In c^haNn=uNpa the extra -u- may have to do with an extra -hu- (perhaps<BR>
'stem'?) in the first and second person, i.e., c^haN=hu=uNpa.<BR>
<BR>
Consider the Riggs form c^aNduhupa (h very very carefully checked), which<BR>
seems to be c^haNd=uhupa. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be inflected.<BR>
I suspect it is something like c^haNd=(h?)u=hupa. Maybe the hupa and uNpa<BR>
are not unconnected? I'm remebering some odd correspondences like this<BR>
from somewhere else - forms having to do with cradle boards?<BR>
<BR>
To complicate things, there's a root iN 'to suck, to smoke', often used<BR>
with tobacco-forms and in things like aziN. The latter is inflected<BR>
a-wa-ziN, but it may be *az=miN, etc., historically.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1"><BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <BR>
http://mail.yahoo.com <BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="1"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>