<html><body>
<p><tt>> > I've been assuming that they were parallel too, but I'm a little mystified on how *W => w across Dakotan, while *R => Da. d, Na. n, and La. l. By that division, I would have expected *W => Da. b, Na. m, and perhaps La. w. And I think Winnebago also has *W => w, while *R => d, doesn't it?<br>
<br>
> It would be nice if parallels were perfect, but the original r/w were typically in different phonological contexts. I suspect that's a good part of it. Doesn't *W turn out as [b] in some Dakotan dialects? (And in LA it's [b] before /u/.) As I recall, you have doublet instrumentals wa/ba and maybe wo/bo?? Check both Buechel and Riggs.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>You're right! I was just going off the 'snow' term. The "shooting" and "cutting" instrumentals are indeed bo- and ba- in Dakota (Riggs), and wo- and wa- in Lakhota (Buechel). Now if Yankton, Assiniboine and Stoney turn out to be mo- and ma-, the parallel will be satisfyingly close to perfect.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> > Why laryngeals?<br>
<br>
> Actually more than one kind of consonant can be involved, but h and ? are the ones that pull disappearing acts and remain the most likely candidates in those cases where no other conditioning factor can easily be identified. As I say n the handbook article, one has to be very careful not to use such things as "finagle factors".<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>This argument assumes that there is an extra consonant involved. If so, a laryngeal might be most reasonable. But postulating an extra consonant that has since disappeared looks like a finagle to me. If *W and *R were nasally-released stops, then I don't think we need anything extra.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Rory<br>
</tt></body></html>