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.
>
>         That seems very far-fetched semantically to me for the article
> meaning. Perhaps you should also know that plain ?uN is apparently in free
> variation with k?uN. If you're looking for compounding, I'd look instead
> at the postposition ?uN 'with; because", but even that doesnt' make
> semantic sense to me.

*?uN has been grammaticalized or seim-grammaticalized with these 'past' (or
perfect/imperfect) notions in a number of languages, often leaving doublets.  I just
posted a note on this construction in the Dhegiha languages, but there are similar
usages in Biloxi.  As I recall Winnebago also uses it (ut I wouldn't want to be held
to that without checking).  There's also the peculiar translations of ?uN as 'be'
rather than 'do' in a number of languages.  I've never tried to sort those out, but
they exist.  I certainly don't find it any more far fetched than "do support" in
English.

Bob