<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color: #000000;font-size: 12pt;">
<font size="4"><font face="Arial">Saul,<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Many thanks for checking on those. The Newberry is a terrific resource. I remember driving up there to look for Romanian dialect materials in the mid 60s when I was a grad student down in Hyde Par<font size="4">k at the U. of Chicago. Very
impressive library.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Bob</font><br>
</font></font></font></font>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF351857"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu] on behalf of Saul Schwartz [sschwart@PRINCETON.EDU]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 28, 2013 2:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: 2 Chiwere questions<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">P.S. Regarding Dhegiha materials at the Newberry, indeed there are! As I just discovered the other day, Edward Ayer purchased (some? all? of) James Constantine Pilling's book collection from the BAE/Smithsonian, which is why when I went to the
National Anthropological Archives, I found lists of books Dorsey said he was sending back to Pilling but not the books themselves. Here are a few catalogue records that may pique your interest:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Edward McKenney's 1850 "Omahaw Primer": <a href="https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=VOl5fc9YW9cJ8xxsRbNmH&SEQ=20130728135851&SID=16" target="_blank">https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=VOl5fc9YW9cJ8xxsRbNmH&SEQ=20130728135851&SID=16</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>William Hamilton's 1868 Omaha translations and hymns: <a href="https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=KEbDz2Y9061QYsSrJOXz&SEQ=20130728135317&SID=14" target="_blank">https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=KEbDz2Y9061QYsSrJOXz&SEQ=20130728135317&SID=14</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(N.B. Rory, this may be relevant to the presentation you gave at the 2012 Siouan Conference in Lawrence on the microfilm of that Omaha manuscript at the Nebraska State Historical Society.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>William Hamilton's 1887 Omaha hymns: <a href="https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=g7NhUlLF2_lUFqqjL6r3g&SEQ=20130728135626&SID=15" target="_blank">https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=omaha%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=g7NhUlLF2_lUFqqjL6r3g&SEQ=20130728135626&SID=15</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dorsey's 1873 "Ponka ABC wa-bá-ru": <a href="https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search%5FArg=Ponca%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=CnBA98bJSmYe8mtJ6tvXg&BROWSE=3&HC=1&SID=19" target="_blank">https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search%5FArg=Ponca%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=CnBA98bJSmYe8mtJ6tvXg&BROWSE=3&HC=1&SID=19</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>William Montgomery's 1834 Osage first book: <a href="https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search%5FArg=Osage%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=l6nIdSz6ui7WDTTVez-wz&SEQ=20130728140222&SID=20" target="_blank">https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search%5FArg=Osage%20language&Search%5FCode=SUBJ%5F&CNT=20&PID=l6nIdSz6ui7WDTTVez-wz&SEQ=20130728140222&SID=20</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In my experience, the best way to search the catalogue is to search "subject" for "___ language" and then put as many possibilities into the blank as you can think of. E.g., "Chiwere language," "Oto(e) language," "Iowa(y) language," etc. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Saul Schwartz <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:sschwart@princeton.edu" target="_blank">sschwart@princeton.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><span><span>Thanks for weighing in, Bob! Regarding accounting for the <K> in the last syllable of WE-WV-HÆ-KJ</span><span><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">U: šų in Chiwere is often preceded by a glottal stop. I don't know any of the
technical phonetic terms for this, but if I tense my throat to make a glottal stop and then try to say </font><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">šų without first relaxing those muscles, then I hear a distinct /k/ sound before the </span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">šų.
If this explanation for the <K> is correct then it also fits with the general approach the missionaries took to writing Chiwere, which just to write what they heard as best they could. In that context, Hamilton and Irvin's decision in their later publications
to stop using <v> for schwa since it sounds so close to /a/ is strikes me as a rare and (subconscious) proto-phonemic moment in the history of Chiwere missionary linguistics.</span><br>
</span></span></div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Rankin, Robert L. <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:rankin@ku.edu" target="_blank">rankin@ku.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman"><font face="Arial" size="4">
<div>> I’m here at the Newberry Library in Chicago going through their Chiwere materials,
<br>
<br>
</div>
Saul, did you notice whether they had any Dhegiha materials in their collections? I dare say their catalog is now on-line, so I should probably try to check for myself. Doing philology on those early religious documents can be a challenge. I took a try at
it for the Smithsonian's Handbook using Biblical passages in Osage. Mostly it's just a matter of finding words you know the pronunciation of and using them as key to the rest of the vocabulary. If you're lucky that'll work all the way through the document(s).
<br>
<br>
In your catechism the lack of distinct symbols for nasal vowels poses a problem.<br>
<br>
> WE-WV-HÆ-KJU.<br>
<br>
I agree with Sky except that we need to explain the K of the last syllable. It seems to me that this final syllable will almost have to be /kšų/, whatever that p<font size="4">ortends for analysis.
</font><br>
<div><br>
<font size="4">></font> Do other Siouan languages use a similar word for catechism?<br>
<br>
</div>
I should know that, but I don't. Perhaps Randy has <font size="4">an idea about this.<br>
<br>
</font></font><font face="Arial" size="4">
<div>> V = I think this is a schwa sound. <br>
<br>
</div>
That was common mission usage in the early 19th century in the S<font size="4">outheast.
<font size="4">V still has this reading in Creek orthography today. In <font size="4">
both Muskogean and Siouan languages this is nearly always an allophone of short /a/.</font></font></font><br>
<br>
<font size="4">So V <font size="4">will always be short /a/, while A may be either long or short<font size="4"> /a/. Presumably this can be either the oral or nasal vow<font size="4">el.
</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<br>
<div style="font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="Arial" size="4"></font>
<div><font face="Arial" size="4"></font><font face="Arial" size="4">
<div>> In any case, the fact that I’ve had this much trouble with the title doesn’t bode well for my plan to one day go through and decode the whole text...<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="4">No, once you get going and "over the hump" it will pretty much fall into place. Lack of symbols for nasal v<font size="4">owels and /x/ and /ɣ/ along with /b, d,
<font size="4">j, g/ <font size="4">don't help, of course. </font></font></font></font></font><br>
<div><font face="Arial" size="4"></font><font face="Arial" size="4">
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font>Second, I was wondering if the -gaxe part of the Chiwere word for book (wawágaxe) or writing (wagáxe) can be broken down into smaller morphemes. Jimm’s dictionary lists =gaxe as a verbal root meaning “scratch; fashion; carve; engrave with an instrument;
create” and as an independent verb meaning “construct; build; make; create” cognate to the Omaha gáxe and Kaw gághe.<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="4">First, it has the long vowel and the gamma, /gaaɣe/, in its <font size="4">
basic form</font></font> throughout Mississippi Vall<font size="4">ey Siouan. Second, it's always tempting to
<font size="4">try to decompose polysyllabic <font size="4">words <font size="4">
so that every syllable is a morpheme. We all do it, but it is often a mistake. I don't think we can do it with
</font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gaaɣe/.
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<font face="Arial" size="4">
<div><br>
> Gáxe looks like it could be composed of gi + a + xe, with gi- being either the instrumental prefix “by pushing or striking” or the indirect object (“to/for”), the a- looks like the positional “on,” and Jimm’s dictionary identifies =xe as a verbal root that
refers to “lifting a soft, flat object.” <br>
<br>
</div>
Actually<font size="4">, the better analysis there would be </font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gi + gaaɣe/.
</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gaaɣe/ is one of those few verbs in which initial /g/ is lost in the dative. Mostly this happens with
/ga-/ 'by striking' verbs<font size="4">, b</font>ut it also happens with </font>
</font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gaaɣe/ 'make<font size="4">, do'. Thus, in Kaw,
Mrs. Rowe had the verb </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gaaɣe/
'make'<font size="4">, but she had competing forms for the outcome of </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/gi<font size="4">
+ </font>gaaɣe/. One outc<font size="4">ome was </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/<font size="4">gi</font>aaɣe/
and the other was </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/g<font size="4">ii</font>ɣe/<font size="4">. </font>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<div><br>
> I have a feeling the Comparative Siouan Dictionary may have the answer, but this is my first time using it, and I’m having some trouble reading it, so to speak. It is suggesting that Chiwere gáxe is composed of two morphemes, proto-Siouan ká meaning ‘make
marks’ and proto-Siouan xE meaning ‘surround’? So then is reading the gá in gáxe as gi + a mistaken? I’m pasting the relevant entries I could find below.<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="4">If the CSD says that, I think it's wrong (which is to say, it wasn't MY analysis of the word). While it is possible that the
<font size="4">*/ka-<font size="4">/ of this term was originally 'by striking', I strongly doub<font size="4">t that the rest was 'surround'. 'Dig' might be a better guess. Any locative prefix, /aa-/, would normally come
<i>outside</i></font></font></font></font> <font size="4"><font size="4">an</font> instrumental /ka-/, so the w<font size="4">hole analysis of
</font></font><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4"><font size="4"><font face="Arial" size="4"><font size="4">/ka-aa-ɣe/ as 'to scratch ON by striking'
<font size="4">would be</font> essentially ungram<font size="4">matical. </font>
</font></font></font></font></font><br>
<font face="Arial" size="4">
<div><br>
> Any insight you could share would be much appreciated!<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="4">Well, for what it's worth<b>. . . .</b></font><br>
<br>
Bob<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>