Dakotan futures.

[Rankin, Robert L]

> wayaga - he sees
> wayagiNkta - he will see
> The best survey of this is Pat Shaw's dissertation.

Pub. by Garland press.

> The two major analyses are:
> 1) wayagA + kta => wayagiN-kta  (or A => iN / __#kta)
> or
> wayaga + iNkta => wayag-iNkta

> As far as I know, only the first of these has ever been seriously
> entertained by Dakotanists.

Although the second is clearly what happened historically, with the
understanding that iN and ktA were separate morphemes, cf. John's Omaha
forms in his posting yesterday. kte is semantically reconstructible as a
verb of 'wanting' and in Omaha iN seems to be a "perhaps-ative". :-)

If anyone is interested, I can "attach" my paper on Dhegihan "Ablaut" in
which I talk about the Dakotan problem quite a bit. It is a MSWord for
Windows file using the SIL SSDoulos font, (font available from John's web
site). Ablaut is a complex question, made complexer by Dakotan phonological
and analogical shifts.

Bob