do/done auxiliary

[R. Rankin]

> ...?uN crops up on most Siouan
> languages as a part of various enclitics signaling
> 'past' or 'perfective', including but not limited to,
> Dhegiha -noN/-naN, glossed 'past' by Dorsey,...

> Is this the -noN (1st person -noNmoN) that I always
gloss "usually" or
> "habitual"?  How would past/perfective give this very
IMperfective meaning?
> Or are there (sigh) TWO -noN suffixes?   Catherine

I haven't checked it out in Omaha systematically.  I
generally have it glossed 'past' by Dorsey, who wasn't
often very specific about aspect as opposed to tense.
Nor am I sure whether modern Omaha and Ponca have
reduced the older /$n/ cluster to /hn/ or /n/ like Kaw
and Osage.  Dorsey (1890) seems to have all three
variants in different places.  About all I can
guarantee is that *?uN has become an AUXILIARY for
either tense or aspect (probably always the latter) in
a variety of Siouan languages -- perhaps even all of
them.  And if *uN is conjugated for person, the 1st
person is indeed /muN/.  [Dakotan has normalized the
underived /uN/ (1sg wa?uN) but kept the conservative
conjugation in the derived 'use'.]  Second person in
Dhegiha is /z^aN/ or /z^oN/.  Other languages have
other outcomes for the *y-.

My recollection is (and it may be faulty) that reflexes
of *-$naN 'usually, used to, habitual' are never
conjugated but that reflexes of *?uN are.  John will
probably remember the Omaha a lot better than I.

Bob