Source of tanlki "yesterday"

[jlarmagost]

As to atlki, in both LC and K it's aL-qi. In his dissertation on K, Hymes
glosses -qi as "re conditions of what follows". (I don't know if anybody
knows what aL- is. Maybe there's an upriver cognate that could help us.) In
any case, we don't have the -i(X) suffix here.

I can't say anything definite about LC taanLki in Henry's post of 5/15/08,
but it looks like it might end in either the -i(X) suffix or in -qi. I don't
think there's a LC suffix -ki, so if it really is -qi Boas might have
misheard it or Cultee might have mispronounced it. On the other hand, maybe
the word was just taanLki with no suffix for us to be wondering about.

Jim

jlarmagost at verizon.net

-----Original Message-----
From: The Chinook List [mailto:CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG]On
Behalf Of James Crippen
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:17 PM
To: CHINOOK at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Source of tanlki "yesterday"


On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM, tanasnaika at gmail.com
<tanasnaika at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know this is a very simple minded idea but tatlki, atlki, chaiki and
tiki
> all seem to be related because they end in *ki* and they deal with time.
> (I'm incuding tiki because of the "just about to" meaning)
>
> Does anyone know if there are connections in chinookan?

A wild guess of mine points to Jim's statement "In both K and LC
there's a  "relation-to-time" suffix <-iX> or often just <-i> in LC."
You'd need to see if the other words came from the same source, and
whether the original *-k was doing something morphological or if it
was just the final consonant of the root forms.

James

To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'.  To respond privately to
the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'.  Hayu masi!

To respond to the CHINOOK list, click 'REPLY ALL'.  To respond privately to the sender of a message, click 'REPLY'.  Hayu masi!