new track: ?uN

[ROOD DAVID S]

Sorry again -- John has found another mistake caused by me trying to do
this too late and too fast.  the 'we are' form is properly
			uNk?uN
not ec^huNk?un.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
Campus Box 295
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Koontz John E wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> > Bob, As you  know, I don't know the comparative material as well as I hope
> > I will in a couple of months, but I'm somewhat dismayed to see you
> > treating ?uN 'do' and ?uN 'be' in the same breath, since they are
> > conjugated totally differently in Lakhota.  'do' looks related to 'use':
> >
> > 	mu 'I use'	ec^hamu 'I do' 		wa?uN 'I am'
> > 	nu 'you use'	ec^hanu 'you do'	ya?uN 'you are'
> > 	?uN '3 uses'	ec^huN '3 does'		?uN '3 is'
> > 	uNkuN 'we'	ec^huNkuN 'we...'	ec^unk?uN 'we are'
>
> There isn't any contrast like this in Omaha.  In notice the 'be' form here
> compounds with e=c^ha in the inclusive.  Of course, there really isn't any
> 'be' usage of an aN in Omaha-Ponca, either, just those various auxiliary
> uses.
>
> > In other words, 'do;use' seems to have pure vowel initial, while 'be' has
> > an organic (underlying) initial glottal stop.  Surely glottal stops don't
> > pop up out of nowhere, especially after consonants????
>
> Here's where Dick Carter or Mauricio Mixco might be able to say something,
> though I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to touch this with a ten foot
> pole - wouldn't ki(N)-uN be likely to be kuN? ?< k?uN ?< ki(N)?uN in
> typical Mandan developments?
>
>