<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Regina, Many thanks for this response. My apologies for perhaps "muddying up" the issue somewhat! <div>Obviously my post was no model of clarity : My intention was to make it clear that Buechel-Manhart (2002, p.175) , echoing Riggs (1890, p.285), actually HAD asserted pretty authoritatively, that Consonant 2 in kic(h)u was NOT ejectivized, despite (what both lexicographers register as) the verb's derivation from k'u.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>In my edition, B-M says :</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>"kic(h)u : [fr. k'u to give to] ....Note : by analogy the word should be kic'u, but it is not."</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Also, your suggested etymology of phute'okicu from kic(h)u makes sense to me : elephants do do just that with their food & other stuff, seeming indeed to be feeding themselves, I have noticed (or used to, in the distant era when itinerant circusses in rural Australia actually had elephants. As a small boy, I used to watch them feed in a paddock, not far from our house.) </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Might it in fact be then that, just as B-M. say [p.278], the verbal part of the compound DOES derive from wokicu, perhaps a Possessive-Dative form of wok'u 'to give food to', meaning in this instance 'give (one's own) food to' -- which may have lost its ejective c' for the same 'reason' as kic(h)u? </div><div>Trouble is, B-M. fails to list such a form : a fact which, one supposes, may not be totally conclusive? Nevertheless, wokicu IS mentioned in the entry for phuthokic(h)u. </div><div>And yet, I have an idea that I have come across other such derived forms in the course of reading texts (in BH [1924], I think, but may be mistaken), which (unlike ikicu) do/did evidently exist, but were omitted from the dictionary.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>My understanding of B-M.'s term "gutteralization" was that it referred to the fricative articulation, or velar release, of the Lakhota aspirated stops kh-, ph-, & th- preceding the vowels a, aN, uN, o, (& sometimes e), as indicated in the Txakini, & Ullrich orthographies. Not correct? </div><div>My exasperation with B-M. was at their very confusing annotation of BOTH the unaspirated stops AND these aspirated 'gutteralized' ones with a (to my eyes) identical superscript dot </div><div>(See : B-M Dict. "Guide to Pronunciation", p. xiv.) But perhaps I've misunderstood something?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Clive.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>P.S. May I thank you also for your seminal contributions to Lakhota studies. I find your papers on the Lakhota Article, on Split Intransitivity in Lakhota & Osage; on 'etaN' & 'etaNhaN'; on the Postpositions; on 'el' VS 'ekta'; as well as on the Coding of (Siouan) oblique case relations most illuminating. I am so looking forward to the publication of your Reference Grammar! </div><div><div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>On 22/01/2008, at 9:51 PM, REGINA PUSTET wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Incidentally, I have collected some data on kicu 'to give back to' because this verb gave me trouble when dealing with Lakota benefactives/possessives. The file still looks chaotic and I'm not even trying to present you with a clear picture of the morphological properties of kicu, but I think I can say this much:</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">phutokicu 'elephant' might easily be derived from kicu 'to give back', a possible interpretation being 'to give back to the upper lip'. Elephants use their trunks to grab stuff and place it in their mouths (under their upper lips?) by bending back the trunk. So they pretty much 'give back' or return the upper lip to their mouths. Well, maybe that still sounds a bit weird. How about 'to give things (wo-) back to the upper lip'? Or: 'to give/move things back WITH the upper lip' (the trunk is an extension of the upper lip)? </font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Examples for kicu:</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">ogle ki <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>kicu</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">shirt DEF give back</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">'he returned the shirt to her'</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">he <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>kicu <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>we!</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">that <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>give back <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>imperative</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">'give it back to him!'</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">In contrast to what Buechel says, kicu should not be written kic'u because the c is absolutely not glottalized. I will still have to figure out on the basis of my data if there is an etymological connection between kicu and icu 'to take', or possibly even between kicu and k'u 'to give', and whether a benefactive or possessive ki- should be posited as morphological component of kicu. I have transcribed the c in kicu as an unaspirated stop. </font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Some of the flyspecks in Buechel's transcription are negligible and confusing because they simulate phonetic distinctions which aren't there. There are three types of stops in Lakota: unaspirated, aspirated, and glottalized. Buechel adds a fourth category, which represents a special type of aspiration, but which I have never been able to single out acoustically. According to Buechel's definition, this must be a "gutturalized aspiration", and the exact phonetic value of this category still is a mystery to me. </font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">icu 'to take' has an irregular benefactive/possessive form ikikcu. The expected form ikicu does not exist.</font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Regina</font></div><br><br><b><i>Clive Bloomfield <<a href="mailto:cbloom@ozemail.com.au">cbloom@ozemail.com.au</a>></i></b> wrote: <blockquote class="replbq" style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font style="FONT: 13px Georgia" face="Georgia" size="4">I've been little puzzled about the Buechel-Manhart etymology supplied for phute'okicu or phuto'kicu [=elephant] : </font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font style="FONT: 13px Georgia" face="Georgia" size="4">(Quote) Page 278 : "from pute'= upper lip + wokicu=what one RESTORES." (unquote, my emphasis). Why 'restores'? 'Restores' what? </font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font style="FONT: 13px Georgia" face="Georgia" size="4">Moreover, one notes that while 'wok'u' [with specialized meanings : i) give food to; ii) lend] does occur in the dictionary, the said form 'wokicu' is nowhere given.</font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">If I am correctly interpreting B-Md.'s rather bamboozling system of tiny superscript dots & microscopic inverted "flyspecks" for annotation of the unaspirated/aspirated/<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#FF0000">"gutturalized"</font>/ejective consonantal contrast, as employed in their phonological transcriptions for each dictionary headword (2002 edition), this word is "phute'okichu", hence, apparently, that etymology from kichu 'restore/give back' </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">(or is that just 'kicu'? - & I'm using a large magnifying glass! </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">In my edition of B-Md., the -c- is printed with NO dot, so accdg. to the Guide to Pron. p.xiv, it sounds as intitial ch- is Engl. 'chair' : aspirated, no?). </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">B&D. supply [p.89, Sect 104, 1.] : kichu' =to give back one's own'. </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">On the other hand, at the entry for kichu (kicu?) 'restore' , B-Md., (echoing Riggs' Dakota dict., s.v.), make a point of saying that this verb, by rights, ought to be kic'u, (as a derivative, obviously of k'u, with B&D's ki- 'back again' prefix), but <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#FF0000">ISN'T</font>, and <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#FF0000">loses the ejectivity of C2</font>. Perhaps then it is kicu, after all??</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Initially, I supposed that some confusion had arisen, perhaps due to Fr. Manhart (possibly?) being rather 'hoist in the petard' of this somewhat quirky orthographical system, and that perhaps the verbal part of the compound might be simply a Dative-Possessive form of icu 'take/take up', with added locative prefix 'o-' 'inside', hence etymology : 'he picks (it) up inside his upper-lip (trunk)'-->'elephant'.</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">But then one observes that icu has an (apparently reduplicated/syncopated?) possessive form 'ikikcu' 'take back what one has given/take back one's own' (B-Md. s.v.), and there also exists a form 'iikcu' 'take or obtain what one expects', but apparently no 'ikicu'! Wouldn't the form corresponding to my etymological speculation here, have been (phute)-oIKIcu?</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Anyway, while people are setting me straight on that, here's another speculative idea to account for the etymology of 'phute'okichu' :</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">There is a verb ochu' meaning "to become damp in/to have drops of water inside". </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">The Dative/Possessive form might be "okíchu" : "it has [drops of] water inside (FOR him)"--->"his ....has [drops of] water inside". </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Could the etymology of phutéokichu be "his trunk (lit. upper lip) has [drops of] water inside" or "he has water inside his trunk", possibly originating when some Lakota person first saw a circus elephant giving itself a "shower"? </span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">I know: it's a bit 'cute', and prob. transgresses good old William of Occam's ever-useful maxim, but I plead the mitigation of those infuriating dots swimming before my eyes!</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Il ne s'agit qu' un crime passionel, monsieur le juge! ;)</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Kind regards,</span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">Clive.</span></font></div></blockquote><br><div> <br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><hr size="1">Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>