ethnic terms in Lakota

[Dayna Bowker Lee]

I have greatly enjoyed following the threads of this discussion.  With the
caveat that I am not a linguist, I have a couple of bits of information that
might be of interest.  The Caddo term used for little people - yahyashattsi?
or ha'yasatsi, Parsons (Reichard) associates with "lost."  More precisely, I
suppose, "lost" + diminutive. In Caddo oral tradition, a group of Alabama
were said to have been encountered by the Caddo and told them, "We're lost."
This group came to be known as ku'yushsahdah (Coushatta). Kuuwi yushsahdah
is "I'm lost."

The word for ghost is kahayu or kuyu, which may be derived from hakayu
(white).  ?ín-ki-nish-ih is pretty much universally used for white people
now, but began as a designation for an English person.  There were specific
terms for each of the dominant groups of white people that the Caddo dealt
with during the historic period.  A Mexican or Spanish person = ?ispayun.  A
French person = kah-nuush.  Although
?ispayun certainly seems like a Spanish cognate, I don't know the origins of
the Caddo words for English and French people.

Dayna Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: <bi1 at soas.ac.uk>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: ethnic terms in Lakota


> I have always presumed that it applied first to Frenchmen, who
> were the first the Lakotas or Dakotas met.  For that very reason
> other 'white men' have specific names, while the French don't i.e.
> Mila HaNska 'American', S^aglas^a, Ogles^a 'British', Spayola
> 'Mexican'.
>
> Bruce
> On 22 Jul 2002, at 14:06, Michael Mccafferty wrote:
>
> > May I barge in here with a question. The term you are discussing was
> > applied also to Frenchmen in the 1600s, 1700s? To Spaniards? To Britons?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Michael McCafferty
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Koontz John E wrote:
> >
> > > > Members;
> > > > I'm reading your discussion re: the terms for whitemen, et. al. In
> > > > actual usage with which I am familiar, WasicuN (sorry, no
> > > > orthographically appropriate software) refers to white people but
not
> > > > to "white" people. Instead, I learned that it is a contraction of
> > > > "wasi i'cuN" or "taking the fat" or "the fatty meat" which was said
> > > > to be true for the early fur-trappers and the subsequent buffalo
> > > > hunters. They are said to have killed the animal, taken the hide,
> > > > then eaten the richest, fatty and most tender meats for survival,
> > > > leaving the vast majority of the carcus to rot.
> > >
> > > This is the standard explanation among speakers of Dakota as far as I
> > > know:  was^iN - Buechel 'fat not dried out, fat meat; pork' - plus
ic^u -
> > > Buechel 'to take, take up anything; accept, receive'.  I believe that
this
> > > would regularly contract to was^i'c^u.  That is, I assume the nasality
of
> > > the final vowel of was^iN would disappear because it would lose out
toor
> > > be elided by the initial unnasalized i of ic^u.
> > >
> > > So far so good, but I believe that the older pronunciations of the
term,
> > > at least as they are recorded in the lexical materials I normally
see -
> > > Riggs, Williamson, Buechel, etc. - show the 'whiteman' term as having
the
> > > final u nasalized, whereas ic^u does not, and so, presumably, neither
> > > would was^ic^u derived from that.
> > >
> > > As far as I know, this difference of nasalization is the only
structural
> > > difficulty with the 'takes the fat' analysis.  In regard to this,
however,
> > > it seems that an unnasalized version of 'whiteman' is quite common
today.
> > > I am not in a position to assert that it didn't exist in the past,
too,
> > > even though I suspect it did not, unless variability in the
nasalization
> > > of final vowels is common.  I know that at least some enclitics -s^i ,
> > > -xti, etc., are variably nasalized across dialects, but to some extent
> > > this is true across Missisippi Valley, with these enclitics.  My
suspicion
> > > is that denasalization of was^ic^u is to some extent a consequence of
> > > fitting the word to the etymology - a fairly common process in
language,
> > > including in English, as the crayfish said to the sparrow grass.  (Two
> > > famous cases of mangling uninterpretable words in English, the
originals
> > > being ecrevisse - French for 'crevice dweller' - and aspergeoise -
French
> > > for asparagus.  All French from memory.)
> > >
> > > I ran into the was^ic^uN < s^ic^un ~ sic^uN explanation first in
Powers'
> > > 1986 book Sacred Language:  the Nature of Supernatural Discourse in
> > > Lakota.  I should probably have noticed that essentially the same
analysis
> > > is offered by Buechel ...
> > >
> > > As I recall it, Powers' arguments stemmed [no pun intended] from a
> > > consideration of plausabilities.  He may have discussed the
nasalization
> > > issue, too, I think.  I recall noticing that though he made some hay
> > > ridiculing linguists and their silly orthographies he seemed to
understand
> > > aspiration and nasalization and similar fine points well enough.
> > >
> > > I could add an additional argument at this point, which is that the
> > > Winnebago form might provide a precedent for the Dakota form.  I would
be
> > > interesting to know what other formulations were used in the area,
e.g.,
> > > in the Algonquian languages of the Plains and Great Lakes.  I'm
wondering
> > > if it couldn't be argued that the Dakotan form is essentially a calque
of
> > > the Winnebago one.  In the same way there is some possibility that the
> > > Ioway-Otoe form leads to the Omaha-Ponca one (if the 'maker'
> > > interpretations are actually correct), and that the more southerly
Dhegiha
> > > languages have borrowed each others' terms.
> > >
> > > So there we are. I suspect most, if not all, speakers of Dakotan
accept
> > > the 'he takes the fat' analysis.  I also suspect linguists, and
apparently
> > > anthropologists, too, tend to consider it a bit strained, though
various
> > > explanations are offered.  In general, one suspects etymologies based
on
> > > annecdotes.  The example of the folk etymologies of terms like Oglala
and
> > > Niut?ac^hi (Missouria) may make us pause, of course.  Sometimes the
> > > annecdote points the way.  It is not folk etymologies that are wrong -
it
> > > is incorrect folk etymologies that are wrong.
> > >
> > > It may also be worth pointing out that while historical linguists
> > > certainly give precedence to an historically correct analysis - when
they
> > > are able to determine what it is - that from a certain point of view,
when
> > > a innovated analysis has effected a form so strongly as to change its
> > > shape, it has also acquired a certain reality of its own - something
that
> > > the sparrow grass may well have observed back at the crayfish.
> > >
> > > For the record, I think the explanation in terms of s^ic^uN makes more
> > > historical sense.  It would be interesting to know when the 'takes the
> > > fat' explanation is first attested.
> > >
> > > JEK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Michael McCafferty
> > 307 Memorial Hall
> > Indiana University
> > Bloomington, Indiana
> > 47405
> > mmccaffe at indiana.edu
> >
> > "Talking is often a torment for me, and I
> > need many days of silence to recover from the futility of words.
> >                                                        C.G. Jung
> >
> > "...as a dog howls at the moon, I talk."
> >                                     Rumi
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Dr. Bruce Ingham
> Reader in Arabic Linguistic Studies
> SOAS