It does make some sense to not expect the river to be as clearly demarcated as a lake. We have ox bows forming and BECOMING lakes that 'sit there' while the river that had laid by has moved to 'lie' somewhere else... So, if that sort of geological hydrological interface is the source of the different word usages, then it is NOT a trivial point. And good luck to you in your study of that differentiation, which I had found interesting.<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Dan Folkus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan.folkus@gmail.com" target="_blank">dan.folkus@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Oh. But one more thing... Wittgenstein held that meaning is all tied up
in what people actually DO with the words. So, for example, if the
terms made a difference in how the speaker went about, say, searching
for the river, or the lake, then the meaning is different. Otherwise,
he wouldn't say it mattered much, I'm guessing. But now I truly shall
try really hard to be quiet now...<div><div></div><div><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/13/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dan Folkus</b> <<a href="mailto:dan.folkus@gmail.com" target="_blank">dan.folkus@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Sorry to bother you, David. Your various trajectories for specific
ethnographic research should remain unbounded by my more generalized
take. I'm a Wittgensteinian guy really, meaning *ordinary language*
philosophy. Ludwig used English and German. The sad thing is if the
terms 'sit' and 'lie', as I interpret them, don't make ANY sense to
you. I must be out of my depth. I'll just listen then...<div><span><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/12/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Kaufman</b> <<a href="mailto:dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" valign="top">
Sorry, Dan, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Can you elaborate?<br><br>As
a follow-up to my first email, I wanted to pass along a message I
received from a fellow anthro grad student whose grandfather lived in
SE Kansas for 95 years, though he was born in Italy: <br><br>"My Italian grandfather would say a field lies and a boundary-less piece of land sits, and the ocean sits and the rivers lie."<br><br>While
this may seem like an unlikely source of support for this argument, we
suspect that his grandfather talked to indigenous peoples perhaps from
the Oklahoma nations, which, particularly if these were Siouan and/or
Muskogean, would make sense.<br><br>Dave<br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 12/12/09, Dan Folkus <i><<a href="mailto:dan.folkus@gmail.com" target="_blank">dan.folkus@gmail.com</a>></i></b> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Dan Folkus <<a href="mailto:dan.folkus@gmail.com" target="_blank">dan.folkus@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: Siouan positional verbs<br>To: <a href="mailto:siouan@lists.Colorado.EDU" target="_blank">siouan@lists.Colorado.EDU</a><br>Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 2:43 PM<div>
<span><br><br><div>This boundedness flucuates in the case of the river, so the river lies
across a land that sits there. The riverbed is temporary, I think. But
a river lying on a bed that sits, well that seems normal, even if the
river recedes.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/11/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Kaufman</b> <<a rel="nofollow" href="http://mc/compose?to=dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" valign="top">
Hello everyone:<br><br>I'm
writing my third Field Statement (Anthro precursors to a dissertation)
on positional verbs in Biloxi and Siouan, and I'd thought I'd see if
any of you had comments on a couple of things. (I realize Siouan
languages vary considerably in how they use positional verb
classifiers.) (BTW--yes, I'll be doing my diss on Biloxi - I've
switched my focus from Algonquian back to Siouan.) <br><br>In
Biloxi, positional verb classifiers are used, apparently as in other
Siouan languages, to denote shape or position along vertical 'stand',
horizontal 'lie-recline', or neutral 'sit' axes. Some of these
are obvious while others are not. What I'm really curious about
is their use in natural landscape objects, such as lake, river, land,
field, etc. I find it interesting that, in Omaha-Ponca, land (in
general) 'sits' (neutral/unmarked) (maNzhaN dhaN) while a field
'lies/reclines' (u'e dhe-khe). Streams, rivers, bayous seem to
'lie/recline' (both Biloxi & OP), although a lake 'sits' in BI but
'lies' in OP. In BI a forest also 'sits'. I'm wondering
then if the difference between this 'sit' and 'lie' might be one of
boundedness - unbounded/non-delimited/invisible
boundaries 'sit' (land [general]/forest/lake?) vs. visible
boundaries/delimited 'lie/recline' (river/field/lake?). While it
seems intuitive to think of a river as flat/horizontal (which it is!),
we can also see it as being bounded (you can usually see both banks of
a river) and a field is usually partitioned off or small enough to see
its limits. (Koasati Muskogean also has towns, fields, rivers, as
'lying/reclining' - bounded?). As for the lake 'sitting' in BI
vs. 'lying' in OP, this may well be something that is language- or
culture-specific depending on the size of particular lakes in a
cultural/linguistic area. Perhaps the Biloxis saw a large lake
(the Gulf?) of which they could not see its edges or boundaries, while
Omahas saw a smaller lake with well-defined boundaries.<br><br>The
other curiosity is the use of positional verbs with body parts.
In BI, an aching body part 'stands' (e.g., my head stands = I have a
headache). A hand in OP always seems to 'stand' regardless of its
actual position at any given time, but I don't know about other body
parts and in what context these are used.<br><br>I hope this makes sense! Any thoughts, examples, counter-examples anyone?<br><br>Dave<br></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></span></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</span></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>