Strange use Dakota kiN.

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote:
> > I've always assumed that k?uN was just a compound of ki(N) + ?uN 'do' with the
> > usual initial syllable syncope operating.  So "does so" or "did so" looks like
> > a nearly exact equivalent.
>
> How about that little dhaN 'past' auxiliary in Dhegiha, cf. OP =the=dhaN
> EVID (or whatever)-in the past?

If I recall correctly, Bob Rankin reports this in Quapaw in an inflected
form something like 1/2/3 maN, z^aN, naN (???) with the reading 'used to'.

In OP there are just those sporadic -dhaN 'past' glosses by Dorsey.  It
doesn't always occur after the evidential, as far as I can recollect.

The Quapaw form also reminds me of the 1/2/3 maN/z^aN/(aN) auxiliary that
must follow post-verbal =xti 'truely, very' and =s^naN ~ =hnaN ~ =naN
(progressive phonological developments) 'only, exclusively, habitually',
which may be connected with the aN that appears as maN in the first person
only of =(a)z^i NEGATIVE: =m=az^i (=maN=z^i?) 'I + NEG'.

The only -aN wandering around unclaimed that I can recall is the one in
=(s^te)s^te(w(aN)) 'soever'.