wakhan in nominal position

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:
> In the term WakhaN' ThaN'ka the adjectival stative verb wakhan (to be
> sacred/mysterious/supernatural/incomprehensible) stands in the nominal
> position and is followed by another adjectival stative verb (thaN'ka – to be
> big/large/great).

This is very interesting detective work - a case of Siouan philology, in
fact.

> Any hints from Dorsey's materials? He was a missionary as well, right?
> Any comparative possibilities? I know some of the other Siouan tribes use
> Wak(h?)aNda.

Omaha-Ponca has wakkaN'da, Osage wahkaN'ta, etc.  The kk/hk set would
correspond to Dakotan kh.  A Dakota equivalent would be something like
*wakhaNl- ~ wakhaN'ta.

Dhegiha also has forms like OP wakkaN'dagi 'water monster' (or 'doctor' in
some Dhegiha languages), which looks strangely like it has the Dakotan
article added.  I think that the Omaha Shell Society (and the Mide complex
generally) may moderate some of this terminology, since it involves both a
water monster and doctoring in its basis story.

Both these terms are nominal in OP, and there are various other nouns with
wa-prefixes, some from stative sources, like wasa'be 'black bear'.  There
is also a class of stative verbs in wa-, e.g., wa..khe'ga 'be sick' and
wa..s^u's^e 'be brave, generous':  aNwa(N)'s^us^e 'I am generous' (bad
form to say), wadhi's^us^e 'you are generous', etc.

Finally, there are at least some other anomalous compounds in OP, e.g.,
the name iNs^ta' maN'ze 'iron eye' (or 'glinting eye'?).  The pattern here
of modified noun + modifying noun (treated as a stative?) is different,
but I've always thought that this, and maybe some other examples that slip
my mind, suggest that there are still some mysteries to the syntax of
(relatively) simple NPs in Siouan languages.

JEK