Another (?) Omaha particle.

[R. Rankin]

Hmmm, that's a fascinating and very helpful observation.  I think I'd better
get out Deloria's version of "Iktomi tricks the pheasants" (same story in
Lakota) and see if there is any parallel.  I guess there probably wouldn't be
since the different versions are really just parallel plots, not "discourse."
But thanks for pointing that out.  Actually the k- part of k?uN could come
from any number of sources, I suppose.  I just picked ki(N) because it was
also an article.  We'll see what the Omaholics have to say about aN in this
context.

Bob


> Bob, that is very clearly a basic meaning for Lakhota k?uN, which is where
> I started to get into this discussion.  Deloria never translates it that
> way, at least in the glosses (I've never paid much attention to her free
> translations), but it's clearly the "had" past perfect meaning whenever
> it's a clause subordinator.  It can also be a discourse particle marking a
> solidly completed past event the speaker is very sure about.  So maybe
> your kV-?uN theory is right after all.
>
> DAvid
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> Campus Box 295
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote:
>
> >
> > I have to be careful about starting a new thread here because I've
> > already taken on the whole Colorado National Guard and am spending half
> > my mornings doing email!  But... In working up a paper on discourse here
> > I chose the story of "The rabbit and the turkeys" (Dorsey 1890 pp.
> > 557ff.) because I have that story in three different Siouan languages.
> > In it Dorsey has numerous instances of the particle /aN'/ (accented
> > nasal [a]) with the meaning he translates consistently as 'having'.
> > These appear to be essentially perfects in that, in most if not all
> > cases, they signal that some event had *already* taken place when the
> > action or state of the main verb in the sentence does.  The particle
> > never appears as naN or dhaN.  It is this latter auxiliary that seems to
> > have an imperfective meaning in Quapaw.  It is clearly derived from *?uN
> > 'do' (or maybe 'be') and is conjugated, as we have noted several times,
> > m-aN, z^-aN, naN.
> >
> > Do those of you doing Omaha and Ponca think that the aN from the
> > rabbit/turkeys story is the same as the dhaN that Dorsey translates
> > 'past'?  or is it something new?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > --
> > Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor
> > Research Center for Linguistic Typology
> > Institute for Advanced Study
> > La Trobe University
> > Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia
> > Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087
> > Home:   (+61 03) 9499-2393
> > Admin:  (+61 03) 9467-3128
> > Fax:    (+61 03) 9467-3053
> >
> >

--
Robert L. Rankin, Visiting Professor
Research Center for Linguistic Typology
Institute for Advanced Study
La Trobe University
Bundoora, VIC 3083 Australia
Office: (+61 03) 9467-8087
Home:   (+61 03) 9499-2393
Admin:  (+61 03) 9467-3128
Fax:    (+61 03) 9467-3053