<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;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">Saul,<br>
<br>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span class=""><span class="">><font face="Arial" size="4"> Regarding accounting for the <K> in the last syllable of WE-WV-HÆ-KJ</font></span><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><font class="">U: šų in Chiwere is often preceded by a glottal
stop. <br>
<br>
Yes, I've heard that in my few attempts to transcribe Chiwere words from tape. In my experience, it is usually the reflex of an earlier K that was part of a /k</font></span></font></span><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><font class=""><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class="">šų/
cluster. I suspect that in the authors' time the K was still there. I don't know the meaning of this particular morpheme, but if there is a Dakotan
<font size="4">equivalent, I bet it has the /</font></span></font></span></font></span></font></span><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><font class=""><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><font size="4"><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class="">kš/
cluster.</span></font></span></font><br>
</span></font></span></font></span></font></span><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><font class=""><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""><span class=""><font face="Arial" size="4"><span class=""></span></font></span></span></font></span><br>
> 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>šų without first relaxing those muscles, then I hear a distinct /k/ sound before the 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,
<br>
<br>
<font size="4">> </font>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.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Yeah. It's funny. On the one ha<font size="4">nd, they quite correctly identified their
<i>v</i> with the phoneme /a/, but at the same time they lost the ability to transcribe the distinctively short vowel as
<font size="4">different from the long /aa/. <br>
<br>
<font size="4">Bob</font><br>
</font></font></font></span></font></span></div>
<font face="Arial" size="4"></font>
<div class="gmail_extra"><font face="Arial" size="4"><br>
</font><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 class="im">> 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 class="im"><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 class="im">> 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 class="im">> 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 class="im"><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 class="im"><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 class="im"><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 class="im"><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>
</div>
</body>
</html>