<html><body>
<p><tt>> The etymon in question means 'spoon' in every Algonquian language that has<br>
> it. Except for Miami. There it means 'squash, pumpkin'.<br>
><br>
> However, it apparently can have the latter meaning occasionally when it<br>
> appears as a final, as in Menominee /wi:nE:mEhkwan/ 'squash'.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>By "final", you mean that it appears as the head or base noun of a compound? So Menominee /wi:nE:mEhkwan/ means that a 'squash' is a wi:n type of spoon? What does the wi:n part mean here?</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> It's simplest to assume it meant 'spoon' in Proto-Algonquian and simply kept<br>
> that meaning everywhere except Miami, where it shifted to 'squash, pumpkin'.<br>
> I assume this is simply because in some places and at some times the most<br>
> common spoons were gourds. (Tho there's also evidence that the Miami used to<br>
> make spoons out of shells.) It's an easy semantic jump to make.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>From the historical perspective, that would be simplest, because it would relieve us of the need to tie Proto-Algonquian to squashes. The latter, if I recall correctly off the top of my head, are supposed to have been widely adopted as cultigens in eastern temperate North America about the middle or later part of the first millennium AD (somebody correct me if I'm wildly off here!), which would tend to bring Proto-Algonquian down to about that time if the 'squash' meaning is primary.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>From the pragmatic semantic perspective, however, it seems much simpler to jump from 'squash' to 'spoon' than from 'spoon' to 'squash'. To extend the meaning of a natural item to apply to a technical implement made from it is sensible. Extending an implement term to refer to the natural item seems shakier. If we didn't have to worry about squash cultivation being too recent, I think the simplest explanation for the pattern you have described would be that proto-Algonquians cultivated squashes and used them for spoons. The squash term was immediately extended to include the 'spoon' implement. Later, they spread widely, especially into northern lands where squashes could not be grown. They substituted other materials for making spoons, but kept the 'squash' term to designate the functional implement. At this stage, the Algonquians still spoke nearly the same language and were still talking to one another all across their territory. The universal 'spoon' meaning became primary, and suppressed the original 'squash' meaning even where squashes were still grown. In most dialects where squashes were topics of conversation, other terms were coined to designate 'squash', but in a few such as Miami and Menominee the original meaning was retained, at least in fossil constructions.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>In the Siouan languages I've looked at, the terms for 'spoon' are all over the map. Many are semantic extensions or compound constructions meaning either "buffalo horn" or "mussel shell". That is, the implement term is apparently based on a prior natural object term, not the other way around.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> It's interesting to ask whether ANY Proto-Siouan word for 'squash' can be<br>
> reconstructed on the basis of Siouan languages that weren't next to<br>
> Algonquians -- like, say, Crow, Mandan, Biloxi, Tutelo. If not, maybe it was<br>
> a new concept.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I wouldn't expect to find a genuine Proto-Siouan word for 'squash', because I think that Proto-Siouan is considerably older than the widespread adoption of squash cultivation. However, the Dorsey-Swanton dictionaries of Biloxi and Ofo give /taN/ for 'pumpkin' or 'squash' in Biloxi, and /o^Ntha^N/ for 'pumpkin' in Ofo. In Osage and Omaha, the term is something like /wat(H)aN'/ (not sure about aspiration here). So we do seem to have a basic agreement between Biloxi and Ofo in Southeastern, and Dhegihan in MVS. I don't know how much farther these /t(H)aN/ terms extend. On a quick dictionary scan, I couldn't find any evidence of them in Dakotan. I wouldn't be surprised if they were borrowed into Dhegihan after it had diverged from other MVS languages.<br>
</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>> > So there is nothing preventing it from being a loan into proto-Algonquian,<br>
> > whenever that was. That's an important piece to know.<br>
><br>
> True, but that'd be at a *very* deep level, and who knows where they would<br>
> have been geographically that far back.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>It would be about as deep as Algonquian itself is, or deeper. But exactly how deep that is in years, and the geographical and chronological constraints placed on Algonquian by the technology indicated by the term, is the big question here.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Rory</tt><br>
</body></html>