(In)dependent body parts in Dakotan?

Wed Apr 28 15:03:19 UTC 1999

Dear Siouanists:

As is known, there are two sets of affixes for
inalienable possession in nouns in Dakotan,
one for relatives (mi-...  'my', ni-...  'your',
uNki-... 'our', 0-...-ku 'his/her'),
another for body parts (ma-/mi-... 'my', ni-...
'your', uN(k)-... 'our', 0-... 'his/her').

The criteria of the choice between ma- and mi- 1p. sg.
prefixes for body parts are obscure.

D.Rood & A.Taylor (Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan
Language, 1996) point for Oglala speech: "...ma- is
used for concrete visible possessions, mi- of
intangibles: manag^i kiN ' my shadow', minag^i kiN 'my
spirit'. Speakers from other Lakhota speaking groups
differ as to their use of ma- and mi-".
However, if we look through the "Elementary Bilingual
Dictionary. English-Lakhota, Lakhota-English" (1976),
we'll find the forms mihublo 'my shin' and milez^e 'my
urine' as "intangibles", both mi- and ma- forms for
c^haNte 'heart', nape 'hand', nasula 'brain', thag^e
'saliva' and ma- variant for many internal organs as
"concrete visible possessions".
So the opposition "visible vs. intangible" does not
seem to work for all the cases.

To sum up Riggs (1852, Dakota), Boas&Deloria (1941),
Buechel (1939, 1970), and Rood&Taylor (1976) (all -
Lakhota) we can subdivide the "mi-" words into 3
categories:

1. Any of the "ma-" body parts that "is personified or
addressed" (B&D, p.129), e.g.:
  miuNze, lena awaNmic^iyaka yo!  'my buttocks! watch
these for me!';

2. Body parts "which exibit independent actions"
(Riggs, p.11), "are conceived as particularly subject
to willpower" (B&D, p.128) (labeled as ma-/mi- words
by R&T, ma- words in Buechel's Grammar, mi-words in
his Dictionary):
  i 'mouth',
  is^ta 'eye',  nuN'g^e 'ear',
  nape 'my hand' (ma- Buechel), si (L.)/siha (D.)
'foot',
  c^he 'penis' (only B&D),
  t(h)ezi 'stomach' (only Riggs);
3. "Incorporeal constituents" (Buechel, p.101) which I
would call metaphysical parts of man:
a) "intangibles" (only 'soul' and 'heart' in R&T):
  nag^i 'soul',
  thaNc^haN 'body', c^hexpi 'flesh, the physical body
as opposed to the spiritual',
  c^haNte 'heart' (ma-/mi- R&T);
b) social/behavioral features:
  ite 'facial expression' (as opposed to maite 'my
face'),  itognake 'countenance',
  c^haz^e 'name',
  ox?aN 'actions, deeds',  oie 'word(s)',
  ho 'voice',
  owe 'footprints';
b) excreta (haven't found examples in Riggs and B&D!):
  le'z^e 'urine',
  thag^e 'salive',
  phaxli 'nasal mucus';

What is the common features of these words?  The
oppositions controllable-uncontrollable,
passive-active (ma- prefix for "passive" lungs and
kidneys coincides with the stative 1sg affix!), even
inanimate-animate perhaps work for groups 1-2 but are
inapplicable to  #3, esp. to excreta.

Maybe independency, alienation , or changeability are
the tests for 3b-c? I've been "making" excreta, deeds,
words, and footprints all the time, they change,
disappear, sort of alienate but never to the extent
that  I could say that they are not mine.

We could arrange the prefixes relative to the speaker:
ma- 'wholly mine';
mi- '(originally) mine but temporarily/progressively
alienating, never possessed by anybody else';
ni- 'your', etc.

To strengthen the idea of genuine belonging of
footprints and excreta to a man I’ll post two
citations:
Levy-Bruhl L. (The Soul of the Primitive, 1966, 115):
“First of all the primitive’s idea of individuality
comprises, in addition to his own body, all that grows
upon it, all that comes from it, its secretions and
its excretions.. The hair and secretions, etc., of the
individual are his very self, just as his feet or his
hands, his heart of his head, are. They “belong” to
him in the fullest sense of the word. Henceforce I
shall speak of them as his “appertenances”.
Powers W.K. (Sacred Language, 1986, 47): “..song is
consciously or unconsciously conceived to be an
extension of the human body rather than smth external
to it”.
(Although olowaN ‘song’ seems not to prefix mi-,  it
is inalienably possessed in Hitatsa (Matthews, Hidatsa
Syntax, 1966).

The weakest point in the criterion of independency is
perhaps the soul and the body, though, at least in
Christian anthropology, these are regarded as the
least controlled components of modern human beings :-)

So I take liberty to apply to you with this small
questionnaire:

1. Is this dichotomy for 1p sg.  prefixes for body
part possession peculiar to Dakotan or some other
Siouan languages follow this trait?
 (As a can judge by Matthews' "Hidatsa Syntax",
Hidatsa  has common wii- (my), rii- (your) 0- (his)
paradigm for both “kinship terms and certain articles
of the clothing, song, dance, arrow”).

2. What morpheme underly the mi- form? Is it S1 ma- +
-I- element present in Ithawa 'belong to, own', Itha-
prefix for alienably possessed nouns, Iye 'to be the
one', and is^ , adversary/emphatic personal pron.?
If so, why I- is deleted in 3p sg in Dakotan? Why
Dakota Accent Rule is applied AFTER the deletion, not
before it (yielding the forms, stressed on the first
syllable, mi’-, ni’-)?
Is ithaNc^haN 'chief' a frozen i- form of thaNc^haN
'body'?

3. Are/were there inalienably possessed "essentially
personal things such as tools, clothing, and pets"
(R&T, 1996: "formerly, at least")?
 I found only quirky paradigms for 'bow' and 'arrow'
in Riggs, 1852 (no trace in B, B&D, R&T):
   itazipa, 'bow'
   mit(h)inazipe, 'my bow'
   nit(h)inazipe, 'your bow'
   t(h)i'nazipe, 'his bow' (Teton thiN'tazipa, B&D)

   waNhiNkp(h)e, 'arrow'
   mit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'my arrow'
   nit(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'your arrow'
   t(h)iwaNhiNkp(h)e, 'his arrow' (B&D: thiN’tazipa)

Looks like ‘arrow’ once had i-/mi- pattern, superposed
by itha- turning it into alienable property.

Thank you for your attention!
Connie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com