Virtues-wolves-coyotes

[bi1 at soas.ac.uk]

Thanks for all the suggestions.  The connection to  yaslec^a  'to
split with the teeth'  did occur to me, but it would seem to be
applicable to almost any ravenous kind of beast.  I must go back
and check again on my source. I do agree that a connection with
Navaho or Apache seems unlikely in terms of the movement of
these groups and the geography involved.  It just struck me as an
odd name in view of the usually clear meanings of such things as
heciNs^kayapi 'mountain sheep' (the one whose horns are used to
make spoons) an nig^e saXla 'antelope' (one with the off-white
stomach).  Perhaps I shouldn't expect so much
Bruce

On 14 Jul 2002, at 11:36, Shannon West wrote:

> > -----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
>