<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/13/2007 11:25:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rankin@ku.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>All,<BR><BR>Pardon my temporary absence. We have had no electric
power at my home since 3:15 p.m. Wednesday. The REA Cooperative that
provides electricity to our part of the county says they will try to have
everythig up and running again by Saturday evening, but another storm is
scheduled for Friday night. <BR><BR>I had not thought of the vertitive
as derived from possessive or dative, but I must admit that it took me an
inordinately long time to sort out all the various k(h)i's. There tends
to be at least a little semantic overlap among nearly all of them, aspirated
or not. I had to make a comparative chart of all the usual ones before
things became even reasonably clear. And even then, I tended to get
things in the wrong columns. I've redone it a couple of times.
I've toyed with the idea that all the KI's are somehow derived from the same
source somehow, but it doesn't work in a way that most comparativists would
find convincing. And, as far as I know, Catawban doesn't help.<BR><BR>If
*k- is the normal vertitive and hi in Daktoan is the normal 'arrive here',
then why wouldn't the vertitive of hi be khi?<BR><BR>I seem to recall that
John Koontz had explained the development of all these forms in one of his
papers. I'll have to look for Allan's.<BR><BR>More later as things get
back to normal here.<BR><BR>Bob (cold and in the dark in
Kansas)<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From:
owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Jan Ullrich<BR>Sent: Thu
12/13/2007 10:26 AM<BR>To: siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>Subject: RE: Siouan
ki- 'become (again)', 'return to'<BR><BR><BR><BR>David,<BR><BR>Thanks for
clarifying that. I don't have enough background in historical<BR>and
comparative linguistics to decide between the two ki-, but I do<BR>agree that
vertitives mean "come/go back" rather than "come/go home".<BR>Is it possible
that the possessive ki- and the 'return' ki- have a<BR>common
source?<BR><BR>Jan<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>[mailto:owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu] On
Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S<BR>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:10 PM<BR>To:
siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>Subject: RE: Siouan ki- 'become (again)', 'return
to'<BR><BR><BR><BR>Jan, that's how I interpreted Bob's suggestion that the
-ki- 'revert;<BR>become' is historically related to the -ki- of the
vertatives, and<BR>distinct from any of the others. I think we're saying
that the morpheme<BR><BR>in the vertatives is NOT the possessive. But
Bob will have to supply<BR>the<BR>cross-linguistic data for that.<BR><BR>David
S. Rood<BR>Dept. of Linguistics<BR>Univ. of Colorado<BR>295 UCB<BR>Boulder, CO
80309-0295<BR>USA<BR>rood@colorado.edu<BR><BR>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Jan Ullrich
wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>>> I'm going to side with Bob on this one.
It seems to me that the<BR>>> basic<BR>><BR>>> meaning of the
vertatives is not 'toward home' but 'back (again)'.<BR>> Over<BR>>>
and over in the texts we read "i na gli na...." -- 'went there and<BR>>
came<BR>>> back and...' without the concept of 'home' anywhere
around.<BR>><BR>> I fully agree that the vertitives mean "back" rather
than "home". I<BR>> didn't think that was in contradiction to the
possessive analysis that<BR><BR>> I sided with, but perhaps it is. Or are
you suggesting that the ki-<BR>> that potentially formed the vertitives is
the same ki- 'return back to<BR><BR>> the original state"? I might be
missing some e-mails from this thread<BR>> as it seems my spam filter has
been acting up lately.<BR>><BR>>> Allan had an explanation for khi
but I've forgotten it -- and I can't<BR>> put<BR>>> my hands on the
paper right now, either. Bob?<BR>><BR>> Would be good to
know.<BR>><BR>> Jan<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>No virus found in this
incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus
Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date:<BR>13.12.2007
9:15<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Bob is correct as far as Catawban (Catawba and Woccon) is concerned. There
are no prefixes having the form ki- or anything demonstrably akin to it that
carry meanings comparable to the vertitive, possessive, or dative in these
languages. The only prefix remotely similar is the Catawba locative proclitic
duk- 'back' which is used to form verb stems such as duk=hu:- 'come back,
return' and duk=ra:- 'go back, return'. Given Catawban phonology, duk- should
come from earlier *ruk= or *nuk=, and the final *k might be cognate with the
vertitive in Siouan although there is no good explanation for where the initial
*ru- or *nu- might have come from.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Blair </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See AOL's <A title="http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004" href="http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004" target="_blank">top rated recipes</A> and <A title="http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003" href="http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003" target="_blank">easy ways to stay in shape</A> for winter.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>