Omaha-Ponca Numerals

[Koontz John E]

I had recalled doing this and was pondering where I might have stashed it,
when Bob Rankin solved the problem!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:46 -0700
From: "Robert L. Rankin" <rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu>
To: john.koontz at colorado.edu
Subject: Numbers (fwd)

About a year and a half ago John Koontz and I were corresponding about
this possibility of using numerals as inflected verbs.  John forwarded
this to Dhegiha scholars at that time.  These are all from James Owen
Dorsey's "the C/egiha language", CNAE IV, 1890 as far as I know.  In most
instances it looks as though Omaha-Ponca uses the verb dhiN 'be' with
numerals, unlike Dakotan (see David Rood's recent post) which can use
pronominal prefixes with the numerals themselves.  It looks as though you
can use post-verbal mode/aspect clitics with numerals directly, but not
the pronominal prefixes.  So they're "sort of" verbs -- predicates at the
very least.

It would be useful for Dhegiha field linguists to try for directly
conjugated numerals however.  Sentences like twins or triplets might
utter:  "there are two of me" or "I am two", "there are 2 of you", etc.
might elicit interesting responses.  (Avoid the word for twins of course,
'cause it's all you'll get back if you mention it.).  How about other
quantifiers?  "We are many -- there's a bunch of us."

Thanks to John for the following, which some of you have seen before.

Bob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:17:02 -0600
From: John E. Koontz <koontz at boulder.nist.gov>
Subject: Numbers (fwd)

I thought it might be nice to send something to the Dhegiha List
deliberately for a change.  This is a list of examples of numbers as
"verbs" that I put together for Bob Rankin.

 >Subject: Numbers (fwd)

 > Looks like it's 'to be' and articles in the first and second, and 0 in
the third.

first plural

90:436.17
ANgu' gdhe'ba(N) dha'bdhiN=xc^i aN'dhiN.
We were just 30 (people).

90:434.3
Tti' gdhe'ba(N)=aNdhiN'.
We had ten tents.

second plural

90::722.4
wanaN's^e nudaN'haNga du'ba=naNkha'=s^e
oh ye four police captains!

91:99.9
NiN'kkas^iNga naNba' niN' e'=iN=the
Perhaps you are two people.

third plural

90:166.18
NiN'kkagahi iz^aN'ge=akha naN'ba=akh=ama.
They were the two daughters of the chief.
The chief had two daughgters.

90:315.2
Iz^iN'ge=akha naNba'=z^i=the.
He had two sons.

90:609.2
GaN'=kki, iz^iN'ge=akha du'ba=i=the
And then, he had four sons.

90:152.7
E'gidhe wa?u'=akha du'ba=akh=ama
Finally, there were four women.

90:219.1
Ukki'kkiz^i duba'=bi=ama
There were four brethren.
Or, better, close relatives, maybe inlaws.  I think that might be Morgan's
definition.  I assume it means mutually related, because of the reciprocal.

90::438.1/2
GaN'=kki, S^aaN' tti'=i du'ba=i=the
And then, there were four tents of Dakotas.

90:396.2
Ppe'dhaNba'=bi=ama.
They say there were 7.

90:152.13
Ppedha'bdhiN=bi=ama.
They say there were eight.

90:88.7
GaN'=bi=ama,
a'z^i=dhaNdhaN z^u'=t?aN=i=the=kki,
tti' a'z^i=dhaNdhaN dhimaN'gdha=i=the,
he'ga=s^te=waNz^i gdhe'ba(N) hi' wittaN'ga naN'ba=bi=ama.
So, they say, when groups of different ones matured,
when groups of different lodges were erected,
there were a great many (not a few soever), two thousand, they say.

JEK