[Algonquiana] Prehistoric Language contact ?

[Conor Quinn]

Oh, and from the phonological side, it's worth noting the similarities of
contrastive pitch-accent (albeit from radically different sources), and
otherwise similar consonant inventories, N. Iroquian antilabialism
notwithstanding.

(Absence of contrastive voicing in obstruents---and a fairly systematic
surface alternation between semi-to-full voicing of singleton intervocalic
obstruents, vs. reliable voicelessness in clusters---as well as contrastive
coda laryngeals, heavy functional load on /kʷ/, and a single liquid with no
rhotic/lateral distinction---are all actually not particularly rare
typological properties.  But the shared complex of these is likely an
areal-contact feature.)

Alongside general strongly iambic typology (esp. with rich initial
consonant cluster formation, and open penult lengthening) "invisible
vowels" in the sense of Michelson, LeSourd, and Hagstrom are also an
important shared feature.

And one more non-phonological bit: the systematic equivalent to Medializer
elements (i.e. the "nominalizer" required in much N. Iroquoian noun
incorporation) is also a strikingly similarity, but this may reflect a
semi-universal, depending on your model of the various types of noun
incorporation.  That, and boy do these languages love lexical reflexives,
diminutives, and relative-root-like constructions.

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Conor Quinn <conor.mcdonoughquinn at maine.edu
> wrote:

> Dia dhaoibh, a chairde!
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the notional dual contrast is found in most (all?) of
> Eastern Algonquian, and definitely at least as far south as Western and
> Eastern Abenaki.
>
> It's a tricky pattern, because the "duals" are actually just the familiar
> verbal plurals of the rest of Algonquian.  E.g. they reflect the various
> plural person markings (among them reflex of PA *-aki (with Idp) or the
> EAlg version of PA *-wa·-t, i.e. *-hətī-t).  While the more-than-dual
> plurals are limited to AI stems, with an added stem-extensional
> element---most but not all arising historically from transitivization (=
> TA), then reciprocalization (= AI again)---which then takes the same
> pluralization morphology as the "dual".
>
> So the contrast looks like it emerges from a notion of a minimal plural (=
> just the general Algonquian plural morphology) vs. an extended/non-minimal
> plural (= this new stem-extensional element added in).
>
> What's particularly striking about these systems is that they're not in
> fact strictly dual vs. strictly (more-than-two) plural.  The
> familiar-Algonquian-type simple plurals generally do get a dual
> reading...but if the stems inherently imply more-than-two -type
> participants---e.g. if they incorporate a number 'three' or above, or refer
> to collective/mass action---they very often do not use the stem-extensional
> element, and so superficially have a "dual" pluralization pattern.
>
> As far as I know, the only place where there's a completely strict dual
> vs. plural distinction is in the Mi'gmaq motion verbs, where -ie/-a' and
> -a'si (roughly, 'go..., change...') are systematically replaced with -a'ti
> for dual, and -(i)ta' for plural.
>
> Apropos of the original question, I think Ives might have suggested a
> possible Iroquoian contact influence in one of his two papers on the
> "intrusive nasal" reflex of PEA *ā.  But I might be thinking of some other
> source; and it's always struck me as a little tenuous given that the N.
> Iroquoian languages I'm aware of systematically have contrastive
> nasalization only in vowels other than /a/.  So the contact effect would be
> oddly indirect/abstracted.
>
> David Pentland and I have both independently noted some possible cases of
> lexical borrowing. Off the top of my head, 'eel' and 'great horned owl' in
> the northeastern-area Algonquian languages (i.e. Mi'gmaq gat(ew)-, PsmMl
> kàt(e); Penobscot tihtəkəli, PsmMl tihtikòl) may have Iroquoian links. I
> don't have the relevant Iroquian material at hand, though, and David likely
> has a more extensive list.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Till later, keep safe and sane.
>
> Slán,
> bhur gcara
>
>
> P.S.  Is the Denny article the one that suggests PA *šentiy- 'conifer' as
> a possible loan from/with Siouan?  And points out the calque-cognacy
> (functional equivalence) of *wiki-wa·-hm- with tʰi-pi?  If not, who wrote
> that?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/algonquiana/attachments/20141119/03eed3b6/attachment.htm>