John Lennon Memorial Query: No. 9

[Koontz John E]

This is actually, oddly enough, a query for the Muskoeanists on the list.
It arises out of some on and off discussion that has been going on among
some Algonquianists (Costa, Rhodes, Pentland) and Siouanists (Rankin,
Koontz) about the 'nine' (and related) forms in Algonquian, Siouan,
Muskogean, and, maybe, Tunica.  Bob Rankin is, of course, quite familiar
with Muskogean (and Tunica, for that matter), so it was really just now
that it occurred to me to wonder what other Muskogeanists thought about
'nine' and the relevant fricative corrspondences.  As there isn't a
Muskogean list and I'm not in any sort of regular communication with any
students of the family who aren't on this list, maybe I can ask the
question here, with apologies to those who quite reasonably might prefer
to discuss, say, Dakota syntax instead.

Any stray Algonquianists and Siouanists on the list are welcome to tackle
this, too, of course!

So the question isn't too mysterious, relevant forms would be:

Choctaw and Chickasaw c^akka:li 'nine'
Tunica sahku 'one', tohkusahku 'nine'   (I'm the only one who wonders
                        about this, in all honesty!)

Costa:  "Proto-Algonquian */$a:nka/ will account for *all* the reflexes
found in Algonquian *except* Shawnee, which has initial /c/ ('ch'):
/caakat0wi/ '9', /caaka/ '90' ..."  [$ = s^, c = c^, 0 = theta  JEK]

Omaha-Ponca s^aNkka    (typical of Dhegiha)
IO ?saNkhe             (that's glottal stop + s,
                        from earlier ? + s^ < *ks^)

Biloxi c^kane 'nine'   (perhaps a loan from Choctaw/Chickasaw)
Ofo kis^taNs^ka        (perhaps reformulated from *kis^aNhka)
Tutelo k(i)saNhka

====

A note of more general Siouan interest is that the IO form here is one of
the first in which Siouanists detected IO ?s as a reflex of *ks^.  Most
listeners have missed the ?.

JEK