Fetch

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 BARudes at aol.com wrote:

> The Catawba verbs for fetch consist of a mixed group of stems.  They include
> mutating roots and suffixing roots.  They also include mutating instrumentals
> and non-mutating proclitics.  Incidentally, Catawba does not show any trace
> of noun incorporation.  Also, Catawba has no vertitive.

I see that I was misled by the sequences of duk + verb.  But, it occurs to
me, suppose that the Siouan vertitive is a reduction of (something like)
duk?  The /du/ part would be missing, but the k intact.  I'm not sure why
the /du/ would have gone missing, but worse things happen at sea and in
historical morphology.  None of the vertitives have a fuller form *ki-,
but the natural tendency is to assume that vertitive *k- must be reduced
from *ki- since various *ki- morphemes reduce to *k- with stems that have
initial *r or *th or *h or *?, and all the motion verbs have one or the
other of these.  However, perhaps Siouanists have been on the wrong track
here?  We are also struggling to explain how the *ka strike morpheme (as
attested in Mississippi Valley and Mandan) should correspond to *rak(a)-
in the other branches.

So, eliminating duplicates and some supplementary forms and reordering
somewhat, I get:

====

> /duhu:re:/ brought (du- action by hand [mutating instrumental], hu:- come,
> -re: indicative mode

[m]du-[m]hu:(?) HAND+come 'to bring'

> /da:hu:?-/ to fetch, go get (da:- action by foot [mutating instrumental],
> hu:?- come [mutating root])

[m]da:-[m]hu:? FOOT+come 'to fetch, go get'

> /ima:ru:?ire:/ they bring hither (i- third person plural prefix, ma:- there
> [proclitic], ru:- come [mutated for third person plural], -? momentous
> aspect, -i- third person plural suffix, -re: indicative mode

ma:=[m]hu: THERE+come 'to bring hither'

> da:dehude?  (/da:duhu:de:/) bring it back, go fetch (da:- action by foot
> [mutating instrumental], du- action by hand [mutating instrumental], hu:-
> come [mutating root], -de: imperative mode

[m]da:-[m]du-[m]hu:(?) FOOT+HAND+come 'bring back, go fetch'

> da:dure:kuNde: (/da:da:re:/ /kuNde:/)go (by foot) give it to me (da:- action
> by foot [mutating instrumental], da:- go by foot [mutating root], -re:
> indiciative mode; kuN- give [mutating root], -de: imperative mode

[m]da:-[m]da:(?) [m]kuN FOOT+go give 'to go and give it'

> dugina'heN?,
>
> /dukha:rare:/ bring back (duk- back [proclitic], ha:ra- go, walk, step
> [suffixing root], -re: indicative mode

duk=ha:ra[s] BACK+walk 'to bring back'

> dukhuwa:de:   (/dukkuwa:de:/) bring it back here (duk- back [proclitic],
> kuwa:- come, come along, proceed [suffixing root], -de: imperative mode

duk=kuwa:[s] BACK+come_along 'to bring back here'

> dukha:dukhure: (/dukha:?/ /dukhu:re:/)   back came back brought (duk- back
> [proclitic], ha:- come, arrive [suffixing root], -? participial mode; duk-
> back [proclitic], hu:- come [mutating verb], -re: indicative mode

duk=ha:[s]-? duk=[m]hu:? BACK+arrive-PART BACK-come 'to come back
bringing'

> dugdugra:re:   (/dukdukra:re:/) home back bring (duk- back [proclitic], duk-
> Ibid., ra:- go by foot, -re: indicative mode

duk=duk=[m]ra:(?) BACK-BACK-go'to bring back home'

(Is ra: the same as da:(?)?)

====

I added some (?) in final position where I wasn't sure if a glottal stop
was missing from usage elsewhere.  These are probably spurious on my part.

It looks the first several forms are basically 'to come' preceded by none
(?) or one or both of FOOT and HAND and, I presume, used transitively.
There's no object inflection, right?

Then there is a form with FOOT prefixed to 'to go', perhaps a subset of a
the preceding pattern.

Then there are several duk-prefixed forms of suffixally inflecting verbs,
with meanings that seem to involve either non-arrival or explicit arrival.
Finally there is duk-prefixed ra: 'to go'.

It looks like the used of FOOT and/or HAND is important, but perhaps the
transitivity comes from the context and the instrumental is only relevant
if the use of foot or hand is focussed in some way?  Use of FOOT and HAND
seems to occur only with hu:(?) and da:(?), while use of duk= seems to
occur mainly with the suffixing verbs, but perhaps some of this apparently
patterning is a chance of the forms attested?

The repetition of duk= in the last case is interesting.  (I wonder if
there is a verb gus that is eligible for this treatment ...) (OK, it's
summer.)

JEK