rattlesnakes

[David Costa]

Yes, the Algonquian set is regular. The old Illinois form was
/$iih$iikweewa/. It's found all over the family, from Cheyenne and Arapaho
through to Delaware and Penobscot. I'd treat you all to a huge cognate set
but this *IS* supposed to be a Siouan list... :-) It goes back to
Proto-Algonquian */$i:?$i:kwe:wa/ (again, '$' = s-hacek). It probably
literally meant 'he who goes sheek sheek'. It specifically means the
Massassauga in Miami-Illinois (not the Timber Rattlesnake), tho it's not
clear whether that was the species it designated in Proto-Algonquian. It
seems to be the generic rattlesnake word in some daughter languages.

Perhaps this truly was loaned from Algonquian to Omaha, but I'm just always
leery of drawing many conclusions about onomatopoeic words. We all know
they're dangerous to use in proving the relatedness of distant languages,
and they often violate normal sound changes. But if some Dheghiha-internal
funny business is explained by assuming it's a loan, it could be.

Dave


----------
>From: Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
>To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>Subject: Re: rattlesnakes
>Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2002, 11:50 pm
>

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, David Costa wrote:

>> The Miami-Illinois name for the Massasauga (the smaller of the two species
>> of rattlesnakes in that area) is /$iih$iikwia/ ($ = s-hacek). All the sister
>> languages have cognates, like Ojibwe /zhiishiigwe/ & Shawnee /sihsiikwe/.
>> But I don't think it's necessary to posit an Algonquian -> Omaha-Ponca loan
>> here. /s^(e)e'kki/ and the Algonquian etymon are clearly onomatopoeic, and I
>> wouldn't be at all surprised for the different languages to independently
>> create names like that.
>
> Is the Algonquian set essentially regular?
>
> I'd argue against onomatopoeia as the source of the Omaha-Ponca form.
> There are basically three reasons for this.