Dhegiha prehistory, cont.

[Koontz John E]

I'll leave the archaeology aside.  It should be noted that Bob's analysis,
besides being so well argued that it stretches me to the limits to dispute
those that cause me difficulties with respect to my requirement for a
plausible unity for Proto-Mississippi Valley, are, as far as I am aware,
very much more in accord with the standard archaeological and
ethnohistorical proposals.  Rory's interesting observations on Niuskonska
certainly don't help my case any, either.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> I've never been clear on this Omaha term /uhai/.  I would need a
> quotation or exact context in order to interpret it.  If there is
> reference to /uhai khe/ as a putative hydronym, then I'd say it
> has to be a river name, not a verb form, because of the article.
> Bodies of water 'lie'.  Travelers don't.  If it is a river name,
> Wally's contribution strongly suggests it is borrowed from English.
> Without a citation, I don't think it is possible to interpret
> /uhai/ alone.

Omaha uhe 'to follow something', udhuhe (< *irophe) to follow something by
means of something'.  The analysis of English Ohio as deriving from Omaha
uhai (h)au 'they followed it' (usually without the h, which is supicious
in itself, for those who know their folk etymologists) is an explicit part
of the Omaha accounts of the story of the Dhegiha tribes (and various
others) crossing the Mississippi from the Ohio and spreading "upstream"
and "downstream."  In fact, these three etynologies - one wildly
incorrect, the other two obvious to any speaker of a Dhegiha language -
are the essential basis of the story, along with the circumstance that the
participants are all linguistically closely related.  There are versions
in Dorsey, Fletcher & LaFlesche, and other places, some, but not all,
derived from these sources.  Some good ethnohistorian with good linguistic
consulting really should do something with this someday.