(not so) Silly terminological question.

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, regina pustet wrote:
> The instrumental vs. locative issue is a vexing problem indeed. In my
> recent Lakota text collection, I sort of bypassed the problem, at least at
> first sight, by glossing any locative prefix as L- (for locative, because
> the meaning of prefixes in this slot is mostly a locative one), and any
> "classical" instrumental prefix by INS-.

Notice that the glosses are matched in length with the morphemes
(approximately).

> Another thing: what should we do with the derivational prefix i- which
> designates instruments, i.e. nouns, as in i-cha'phe 'dagger' ("??-stab")?
> This prefix is of course related to the basic locative/instrumental marker i-,
> but I think it is semantically distinct enough to be treated as a separate
> marker, and therefore needs a separate gloss.

I'm not clear on the difference between this derivational i- and a
(grammatical?) one, except in the directional sense Bruce mentions, though
his examples sounded pretty derivational to me.  What would be an example
of the non-derivational i- in Dakotan?

I seem to recall that 'to be proud of' might have an i-?