<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<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: Arial;color: #000000;font-size: 14pt;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal">> First, in my experience with Omaha, I believe that for verbs that begin with u- followed by another syllable, the u- is pretty much always the locative prefix. Some of these verbs are very old and have become “generalized” so that it
may be hard to see the “in” sense of the u-. But it should originally be there.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">This is true of all four “locative” prefixes in all the Siouan languages.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>The fact that the set is found in every Siouan language means that these prefixes are over 3000 years old.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It is not surprising that they have lost their original meaning in many cases.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>This is discussed for Dakotan in Boas and Deloria.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing “whatchacome” wa-. I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-‘s. I’ve always tended
to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though. It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like ‘us’ and ‘(animate) them’ would be a very natural development for a “whatchacome” wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in
for any old object.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">I think the ‘us’ morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It often seems to be associated with another –a- that leaves it long.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve also heard that Hochunk has preserved a more complicated conjugation pattern that is probably more like that of the original language, and perhaps Otoe-Missouria did likewise?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Personally, I’d be surprised to find such a pattern preserved on only one language with no trace left in any of the others unless that language formed a unique subgroup within the language family (like Mandan does, for example).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">There are some peculiarities of Chiwere and Hochunk that are shared and therefore likely retentions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Among these is the special 3<sup>rd</sup> plural suffix.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">Mandan</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"> has -<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">kere</i> ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">3pl</i>, Hochunk has<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:
FR" lang="FR">–ire</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial" lang="FR">
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">‘3pl’, Chiwere has <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
-(a)ńe ‘</i>3pl’, and Tutelo ha<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">s -hele•</i> ‘3pl’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>And although there is disagreement about parts of this enclitic, the set strongly suggests that there was some sort of 3pl subject marker.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> But while I mentioned that my gut tells me there is no real difference [in the meanings of wa- and wa- -- RLR], I still wonder if there is a difference and if there is a definite THEM if it would follow your pattern of coming after the
locative vowel prefix.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">That would be surprising.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">>manyi – he/she/it walks</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">manyiwi </b>– they-dual walk</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">manyinye – they-plural walk</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> Older sources don’t list this form.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">Lack in older sources could stem from several problems.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Older grammarians lacked linguistic training and therefore expected Native languages to have the same categories as European languages.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Exceptions to this were sometimes simply excised as “illogical.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the ‘I’ form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard
‘we’ form. (I’m going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">That would be surprising too.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>The form without –<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">(a)wi</i> should already be ‘inclusive’ as it is in the other languages.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I don’t know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1<sup>st</sup> sg. form of the verb.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I could be corrected on this though.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi. The elements are the same; it’s only the meanings that are different.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">–api</i>. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I don’t see a difference in meaning really.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It means ‘pluralizer’ throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Maybe you’re talking about the 3sg use of –abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called ‘proximate vs. obviative’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I guess I’d consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>But, again, I could be corrected on this.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">>Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ wát^anwe" [wa + a + t^ánwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ wót^amwe [wa + u + t^ánwe].</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">That makes perfect sense to me.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It’s the normal meaning and order for the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">
a-</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">o-</i> locatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>I don’t see a problem here, but maybe I didn’t get one of the messages in the sequence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">Bob</span><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman""></span></p>
<!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0pt;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--></div>
</body>
</html>