On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Rankin, Robert L wrote: > I don't think these are at all related to the 'bean' word, since in 'bean' > the (h)o- portion is etymologically distinct from the -m(i)ni- part, and the > latter part is the part borrowed from Uto-Aztecan or Yuman (v. our earlier > correspondence). Note also that Mandan has, per Hollow, o'wriNk 'bean' (i.e., o'miNniNk).