<tt><font size=2>Rory wrote:</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> Looking at the data you present, I would
be inclined to read these stems as</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> phonemically CVC in proto-Siouan, but as
operating within a phonological</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> system that required a small, meaningless,
schwa-like vocalization after</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> a final consonant to clarify that final sound.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bob writes:<br>
> But your “schwa-like” epenthetic vowel is [–e] in 12 or 13 languages
in several</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> subgroups over a 2000 mile stretch. This
is the equivalent of reconstructing *-e</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> in these cases. You’re just reconstructing
*-e as a “rule” or process instead of</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> as an “item”. But with a c. 3000 time
depth, we don’t have any way to distinguish</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> the two equivalent “solutions”, and the phonological
result is the same either way.<br>
<br>
Correct. I was disputing the rigid dichotomy you raised in your previous
post to make a CVC hypothesis for proto-Siouan seem unreasonable. I
was not particularly disputing the substance of your thesis regarding the
later development of ablaut in Siouan, and especially Dakotan. By
your solution, *-e goes away in the face of a suffixed *-a because it is
phonologically weak. By mine, it goes away because it is not really
there at all.</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> . . . it would stay consonant final, as in
Winnebago or Mandan.<br>
<br>
> The so-called “consonant finals” in Mandan are not real in the sense
that they are</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> in Winnebago. A final –e in these stems
is actually pronounced. They seem to be a</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> creation of Bob Hollow, who tried the “all final
–e in Mandan are epenthetic” solution</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> in his dissertation. He fell into the trap
of the Dakotacentric “consonant-final</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> stems” because he couldn’t hear the long/short
vowel distinction in Mandan. Carter</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> and Mixco cleared this up.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks for this explanation. I stand corrected
on Mandan.</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>> This is another type of analysis that I distrust.
What you and Hollow are saying,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> in effect, is that all short unaccented vowels
can occur word-finally except the most</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> common, namely, -e. And for some unfathomable
reason, short unaccented -e alone can’t.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> This trick was toyed with in the ’70s as a means
of creating additional “economy”.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> But it does so at the expense of badly skewing
the vowel distribution and basic syllable</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> structure. Theoretically, of course, in
ANY language with a requirement of open syllable</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> structure, it is, in fact, possible to “predict”
the statistically most common vowel</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> syllable-finally. But this sort of parsimony
has generally been considered spurious.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>I'm confused here. Can you give me a few examples
of widespread old Siouan words with these word-final short unaccented vowels
other than -e that we're talking about here? Also, why would suggesting
that _some_ words of the form CVCe are underlyingly CVC imply that _all_
words of that form necessarily are?<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> From what work I have done with Omaha, I
think these final -e sounds receive much</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> less stress than previous vowels in the stem,
and the speakers sometimes seem a little</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> ambivalent about whether they should be pronounced
-a or -e.<br>
<br>
> I respectfully doubt that this would true for Omaha-dominant speakers.
Speakers can</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> normally hear/produce phonemic distinctions 100
times out of 100. I can see English-dominant</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> speakers producing schwas and the like. But
I have to say I didn’t get that sort of doubt</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> from Ponca, Osage and Kaw speakers.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>I'm certainly open to this possibility, but the question
remains whether these are, in fact, phonemic distinctions.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> When I try to get them to choose one, I can
usually make them agree that it's -e,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>>> but perhaps I'm the one imposing something
on the language that isn't actually there.<br>
<br>
> Given the cognate sets, plus my limited experience with Omaha, I think
your hearing is</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> just fine.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks. I think my hearing is reasonably good
too. But my hearing sometimes interprets the sound as -a when they
say it spontaneously, though I can often get them to admit that it's -e
when I force them to choose. And I know that much of my foundational
knowledge of Omaha grammar comes from linguists, not directly from the
speakers. Also, that a good deal of what I thought I knew from the
former has been convincingly challenged, corrected, or greatly augmented
by the latter.</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Best,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Rory</font></tt>
<br>