Strange use Dakota kiN.

[R. Rankin]

> > 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?

That's the doublet of the Omaha-Ponca reflex of *?uN:  'do'

It is conjugated as an auxiliary still in Quapaw, and, I suspect, the other
dialects.
m-aN    'I do/did'
z^-aN   'you do/did'
   naN   's/he does/did'  with the epenthetic n/dh/y in the 3rd person.

The epenthetic glide in the 3rd person is the only thing that distinguishes the AUX
from the main verb as far as I can tell.  That, plus it's syntactic function, of
course.

In Quapaw texts it nearly always has an "imperfective" meaning, i.e., is best
translated 'used to'.  In OP it would be homophonous with the sitting inanimate
dhaN.  In Quapaw it is homophonous with the habitual naN but this is only because
Dorsey didn't transcribe initial voiceless nasals.  Habitual is really hnaN in QU <
*shnaN.  These all occupy different enclitic slots.  Habitual precedes -abe/i 'pl'
and what I've called 'imperfective' here is nearly always in the rightmost slot,
following 'pl.'

Bob