<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div id="yiv49848121"><table id="yiv49848121bodyDrftID" class="yiv49848121" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td id="yiv49848121drftMsgContent" style="font:inherit;font-family:arial;font-size:10pt;"><div id="yiv49848121"><table id="yiv49848121bodyDrftID" class="yiv49848121" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td id="yiv49848121drftMsgContent" style="font:inherit;font-family:arial;font-size:10pt;"><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">> </span>The structure of waxpanica 'poor' is apparently analogous to <span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;">> </span>that of wablenica 'orphan'. <span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><p
class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;">I
agree that re-analyses if often a factor in shifting the affixation
spot and that it could be the case in wablenica, just as it obviously is
in waxpanicA. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125);">But
note that waxpanicA has ablaut, unlike wablenica. This is why I am
still a little reserved to the theory that the “nica” component of
wablenica comes from the verb “nicA” ‘to lack sth’. Why would it retain
ablaut in one compound and not in another. <br></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal">Given that the waxpa-component of waxpanica 'poor' is etymologically transparent, while the wable-component of wablenica 'orphan' apparently isn't, we can hypothesize that wablenica is a whole lot older than waxpanica. I don't know when the ablaut rule was created in Lakota, but isn't it possible that that happened *after* wablenica became fossilized as a lexical item, and *before* waxpanica entered the vocabulary? At the point at which the nica 'lack' component was not recognized as a separate lexical item any more by Lakota speakers, there was no motivation for applying the ablaut rule. waxpanica, on the other hand, might be recent enough to contain that version of nica that has ablaut.</p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">there are lots of ka suffixes (ca when palatilized) that
are potential candidates for the wablenica etymology.</span>
</p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p>
<p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal">That would leave us with a component
-ni- that needs explanation. I can't come up with really convincing
solutions for this new problem. I do not assume that we're
dealing with ni 'to live' here. An obsolete negator -ni (could be something else though, cf. Buechel), as in tuwe-ni(-shni) 'nobody', looks like a possibility, but still, the nica 'lack' analysis is more appealing to me for semantic and other reasons.</p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal">Regina<br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv1685193955MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125);"><br></span></p><br><div class="yiv49848121vcard">
<div class="yiv49848121row">
<div class="yiv49848121label">From: </div>
<div class="yiv49848121details"><div class="yiv49848121abook"><span class="yiv49848121email">"Jan Ullrich" <jfu@lakhota.org></span></div><a rel="nofollow" id="yiv49848121message_view_ab" title="Add sender to Contacts" target="_blank"
href="http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTBsdTZpcnZpBF9TAzM5ODMwMTAyNwRhYwNhZGRBQg--/SIG=1rg7hsiqt/EXP=1314259113/**http%3A//address.mail.yahoo.com/yab%3Fv=YM%26A=m%26simp=1%26e=jfu%2540lakhota.org%26fn=Jan%26ln=Ullrich%26.done=http%253A%252F%252Fde.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com%252Fmc%252FshowMessage%253FsMid%253D1%2526filterBy%253D%2526.rand%253D587842082%2526midIndex%253D1%2526mid%253D1_1357981_ANcIw0MAABAcTkLiYwMELEoYRxc%2526fromId%253Djfu%252540lakhota.org%2526m%253D1_1360571_ANMIw0MAAV9UTkNizw33iRYBinA%25252C1_1357981_ANcIw0MAABAcTkLiYwMELEoYRxc%25252C1_1355904_ANMIw0MAAYQ5TkH8BAyY1hbE4so%25252C1_1352508_ANIIw0MAAFUITkEUsQPWAj4yxzU%25252C1_1351934_ANgIw0MAAUZITkEKkg6rcXuWtvY%25252C1_1347180_ANUIw0MAAOiQTj%25252F%25252FpwbX71DncOU%25252C1_1343026_AM8Iw0MAAGvdTj%25252FUeQOigHrJvbc%25252C%2526sort%253Ddate%2526order%253Ddown%2526startMid%253D0%2526hash%253D8f3cf7c997587eed4de682a52e404b82%2526.jsrand%253D1455020%2526acrumb%253DygsQUDEkzXd%2526ymv%253D0%2526e
%0Anc%253Dauto" class="yiv49848121pim yiv49848121addtoab">
<span class="yiv49848121offscreen">Add sender to Contacts</span></a>
</div>
</div><div class="yiv49848121row">
<div class="yiv49848121label">To: </div>
<div class="yiv49848121details">siouan@lists.Colorado.EDU</div></div></div>
<p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"> </p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">> </span>The structure of waxpanica 'poor' is apparently analogous to <span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;">> </span>that of wablenica 'orphan'. <span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> <br></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125);"> there are lots of ka suffixes (ca when palatilized) that
are potential candidates for the wablenica etymology.</span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125);"></span></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal">That would leave us with a component -ni- that needs explanation. I can't come up with really convincing solutions for this new problem though. I do not assume that we're dealing with ni 'to live' here. An obsolete negator (?) -ni (as in tuwe-ni(-shni) 'nobody') looks like a possibility, but still, the nica 'lack' analysis is more appealing to me on semantic grounds.</p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="yiv49848121MsoNormal">Regina<br> </p><br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;"><div id="yiv49848121"><div class="yiv49848121WordSection1"><table class="yiv49848121MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;"
valign="top"><br></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr></table>