Virtues-wolves-coyotes

[Shannon West]

> -----Original Message-----
> Koontz John E
> Sent: July 13, 2002 9:31 PM
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 bi1 at soas.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the derivation of the Lakota word for coyote
> > yas^le or mayas^leca.  It is very 'opaque' as they say, not like most
> > Lakota animal terms which often have a derived meaning as in
> > s^ungmanitu or wamakhas^kaN. I think I once heard that it was an
> > Athabaskan/Dine borrowing.
>
> Buechel also gives mas^le and mayac^a.
>
> I notice that Osage has dhasceke (tha-stse-ge) 'to make a gash in the
> flesh'.  This would be from *ra-s^rek(e), while mayas^le^a would be from
> ma(N)-ra-s^rek(a).  The root *s^rek- is probably either consonant final or
> one of those ablauting nouns.  This is actually saying the same thing,
> with different presumptions as to the basis of the phenomenon.
>
> Buechel gives yaslec^a as 'to split with the teeth', but no yas^lec^a.

I checked Riggs for Dakota too. sde'-c^a sends you to kasdec^a, which means
"to split, as wood with an ax". I also happened to look up kas^dec^a which
he lists as a variant of kasdec^a. Ya-sde-c^a is listed as "to split with
the teeth", ya- being the instrumental 'with the teeth'. There is no entry
for mayas^dec^a or mayasdec^a.

--->
> I think you could make a good case for something like 'it gashes by mouth;
> a gasher', though the ma- part doesn't make any sense to me, unless it is
> a fossilized form of the 'cutting' instrumental (cf. those Winnebago
> forms, or OP ma[a]=).  I guess that's not very likely, since there's
> already a ya- (*ra-) instrumental.  (Is the instrumental maya-?)  The
> mechanics of truncating a final -c^a < *-ka are pretty obvious in Dakotan,
> though in this case I think the -c^a is for once not that -c^a ~ -ka
> suffix, but an organic part of the stem (originally).
>
> If this seems reaosnable, then this is an example of the utility of
> looking up etymologically equivalent forms in other Siouan languages to
> resolve obscurities.  True, we usually resolve obscurities elsewhere by
> looking things up in Dakotan, instead of the reverse!

Well, I think it's pretty clear the ya- is the instrumental 'with the
teeth', so yaslec^a would be 'to split with the teeth' (as Beuchel says) or,
as you say 'to gash'. Could the ma- not be the first person object? 'It tore
at me with its teeth' or 'It chomped me' or something. :) I don't know much
about the historical end of things, so this could be totally off the mark,
but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw it.

Next time I talk to any Nakota speakers, I'll ask about this term. I don't
seem to have it in my notes.

Shannon