<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: squash</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
> Could we try to put our assumptions on the table regarding the direction of <BR>
> loan words? If I'm understanding correctly, it seems to be agreed that the <BR>
> word for 'squash' reconstructs phonologically throughout (eastern?) Algonquian<BR>
<BR>
No, just plain 'Algonquian'. It's found throughout the family, from Micmac <BR>
to Cree to Arapaho to Shawnee to Delaware and almost all points in between. <BR>
The only decently-documented part of Algonquian where it's NOT found are the <BR>
Southern New England languages (the languages of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, <BR>
and Connecticut), which are a lexically innovative group in general.<BR>
<BR>
Also keep in mind that it means 'spoon' -- not 'squash' -- in every <BR>
Algonquian language except Miami.<BR>
<BR>
> as *eemehkwaan-. <BR>
<BR>
Very likely *eemehkwaan<U>a</U>. Animate gender.<BR>
<BR>
> Siouan, on the other hand, does not reconstruct so easily, though similarities <BR>
> are apparent with each other and with the Algonquian term.<BR>
<BR>
> Model 1. The term originates in proto-Algonquian and is adopted variously by <BR>
> different Siouan daughter languages, which means that the term will not be <BR>
> consistent within Siouan.<BR>
<BR>
Coming from a position of being mostly ignorant about Siouan, that seems most <BR>
likely to me, esp. since it seems to match the results of some other <BR>
apparent Algonquian -> Siouan loans.<BR>
<BR>
> Model 2. The term originates from wherever as an international term and <BR>
> spreads variously to different languages in eastern North America. Siouan is <BR>
> already differentiated into its daughter languages; Algonquian is not. Thus, <BR>
> proto-Algonquian, proto-Dakotan, proto-Dhegihan, proto-Chiwere, etc., might be <BR>
> contemporaries, each adopting a technical term that comes from one of the <BR>
> Siouan daughter languages or, perhaps more likely, Muskogean or some other <BR>
> southeastern language.<BR>
<BR>
The problem is with this scenario is that Algonquian is a few thousand years <BR>
old, and since this word reconstructs very cleanly in Algonquian (and is <BR>
present in every corner of the family), Occam's razor would lean heavily <BR>
toward saying it was present in Proto-Algonquian, or, at the very least, a <BR>
<B>VERY</B> OLD loan in Algonquian (almost the same thing). By the time this word <BR>
was present in Proto-Algonquian, Proto-Siouan obviously hadn't split off <BR>
into its daughter languages yet, either. If this etymon was present in some <BR>
Siouan language that far back, that's almost equivalent to saying this word <BR>
was present in Proto-Siouan. And if I understand Bob correctly, this word <BR>
will not reconstruct in Proto-Siouan. Right?<BR>
<BR>
BTW, Bob, what is the geographic distribution of this word in Siouan? All <BR>
over, or only in the Mississippi Valley languages, or what?<BR>
<BR>
(Far as I know, the word doesn't reconstruct in Muskogean, either. The word <BR>
obviously has a special status in Algonquian.)<BR>
<BR>
> Either of these models suggests that proto-Siouan is earlier than <BR>
> proto-Algonquian,<BR>
<BR>
You lost me here. Why would your first model suggest that?<BR>
<BR>
> and that the spread of the term between the two language groups takes place <BR>
> after the divergence of proto-Siouan. <BR>
<BR>
It would help to know whether Proto-Algonquian was older than Proto-Siouan <BR>
or vice versa, but offhand I couldn't offer an answer to that.<BR>
<BR>
> The proper level of comparison for internal consistency would be the Siouan <BR>
> daughter branches with each other and Algonquian, not all of Siouan with <BR>
> Algonquian.<BR>
> <BR>
> To choose what language group the term originated from, we should probably <BR>
> look for corresponding verb roots that really make solid sense for deriving <BR>
> the noun (not fanciful constructions that might have been chosen to chime with <BR>
> a foreign term).<BR>
<BR>
Well, in this regard, within proto-Algonquian, this word is totally <BR>
reconstructible but cannot be segmented. The root is unrecognizable. That <BR>
might speak to it being a loan into Algonquian EXTREMELY long ago. Or <BR>
perhaps it simply shows an old root that dropped out of use everywhere <BR>
except this noun.<BR>
<BR>
> In this light, exactly what is the reason for supposing that the 'squash' term <BR>
> passed from Algonquian to Siouan (or vice versa)?<BR>
<BR>
Well, if the word is not reconstructible within Siouan, and if it has a <BR>
limited distribution within Siouan, that's a big hint that it's not that old <BR>
within Siouan. And <I>nothing</I> argues against it being old within Algonquian. If <BR>
the word was borrowed in Algonquian and old in Siouan, you'd expect it to <BR>
(a) reconstruct cleanly in Siouan and (b) to not reconstruct well in <BR>
Algonquian, and (c) to be missing from big swathes of Algonquian. The latter <BR>
phenomena are not seen.<BR>
<BR>
If I understand Bob and John correctly, the Algonquian loans into Siouan are <BR>
usually concentrated in Dakotan, Dhegiha, and Chiwere -- that is, the <BR>
languages with the closest proximity to Algonquian. If this word is likewise <BR>
missing from, say, Tutelo, Biloxi, and Crow/Hidatsa, there'd be no way to <BR>
explain that if this word was present in Proto-Siouan. But if it's a loan in <BR>
Siouan, we'd expect that distribution.<BR>
<BR>
David C<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>