a phonetic mystery

[Rankin, Robert L]

> I would like confirmation of the following from others who
listen to Lakhota, but I hear a contrast between mni 'water', with an oral
vowel, and mniN kte 'I will go' with a nasal "i".  If that's the case, isn't
there a problem with deriving the m-n of 'water' from *w-r+nasal?  I
still think we have been far too sloppy in our listening to Lak. vowels
after nasal consonants, but it would take a dedicated study to straighten it
out, preferably one that uses instrumental phonetics and a variety of
speakers from different places and age groups.  Until we do this,
however, I think all our *w & *r reconstructions are suspect.

While I agree that most of us have been remiss in not distinguishing nasal
from non-nasal vowels after nasal consonants (the problem isn't limited to
Dakotan!), I think the degree of nasalization in 'water' and 'I will go' is
a simple matter of relative chronology.

'Water' had a nasal V in the proto language as shown by the cognate set, all
members of which but Ofo show consistent [n]'s. The vowel itself may have
denasalized fairly early.

Nasalization in 'I will go', on the other hand, is very recent, as shown by
the fact that only in Dakotan do we find reflexes of nasalization in this
sequence at all. This presumably stems from the fact that the 'irrealis'
mode (=future "tense") marker is/was bimorphemic in the form taken by
Dakotan. It had nasalization associated with the morph preceding ktA. If I
recall correctly, Winnebago or Chiwere preserves the [iN]. This would have
to have developed after the split-off of Dhegiha since only the *-kte >
tte/a is preserved there. It goes back to a verb that meant 'want'
apparently, considering the Crow/Hidatsa/Mandan/Biloxi cognates, but the
nasal element is separate and doesn't show up in those languages either.  I
think John has come up with Omaha cognates for the -iN- as a separate
morpheme.

So the "old" nasal vowels apparently denasalize after m/n while the newer
ones came along afterward and don't.

That doesn't mean that all the developments in the *w-r sequences are clear
and obvious however! Far from it.

Bob