PMV 'want'

[Koontz John E]

This is a quick survey of 'want' across Mississippi Valley Siouan.

All Dhegiha has *...kuN=...ra (A1 p-kuN=p-ra)

OP ...gaN=...dha  (A1 kkaN=bdha)
Os ...koN=...dha  (A1 kkoN=bra)
Ks ...goN=...ya   (A1 *kkoN=bla)
Qu ...koN=...da   (A1 kkoN=pda)

Having kk rather than pp in the first person is unusual all the other (not
many) k-stems have pp in the first person, e.g., OP gaghe (A1 ppaghe).

Ioway-Otoe has:

IO guN=...na (< *kuN=...ra) or guN=...ra (Marsh)

I *think* only the second element is inflected, but this form is not
presented anywhere with a paradigm that I have seen.  The first person is
probably something like A1 *guNada, by analogy with other r-stems, but
this is not certain.  (R-stem first persons have both regular and r-stem
inflection, a-d... < ha A1 + R, R from p-r, where p is also A1.)

Winnebago has:

Wi roo=guN (A1 ru=aguN)

In other words, the root is guN, inflected regularly.  The preverb roo=,
ru= is not understood.  Since Marino has hiroguN(xjije) 'to desire, want',
I wonder if this roo= might be from hiro- (like Dakota iyo- or OP udhu-).

Dakotan has:

Da kuN (A1 wakuN)

There is also a diminutivized form khuN=la, but the =la is the Dakotan
diminutive (< *Ra) and not cognate with the =ra in Dhegiha and Ioway-Otoe.

The Dakota form has one small irregularity, in that it is not palatalized
when inflection or derivaiton places an /i/ before the kh, e.g., nikuN 'he
coverts thee', not expected *nic^uN (Boas & Deloria 1941:14).  I have
sometimes wondered if this might be connected with the kk rather than pp
phenomenon in Dhegiha, but I can't see how that would be, frankly.


====

LaFlesche lists for Osage k.oN /kkoN/ 'to wish or to desire' (LaF 88b).
I am pretty sure this is a ghost.  LaFlesche includes little pieces of
earlier work, not always transcribed under the system he uses himself,
or, at least, not properly adapted to it.  Thus, looking around you
find a few dh-stems inflected the Osage way where LaFlesche himself
always uses the Omaha way.

Dorsey used dotted letters (a small x under the letter in manuscript) or
turned letters (in print) to represent his conception of sonant-surds,
i.e., with stops, to indicate voiceless aspirates.  In OP he distinguishes
g : k. : k corresponding to what we write g : kk : k (or g : k : kH in the
current popular orthographies, H representing raised h).  In Os, where the
lax stops (g)  are devoiced, he writes k. : k. : k, usually adding h.
(turned h) before the tense variant of k. and usually adding opening
apostrophe or x or c (s^) after the aspirates, leading to k. : h.k. : kx ~
kc in practice.

LaFlesche, having a native speakers appreciation of things, usually writes
(in his final system) g : k. : k in both OP and Osage, generally adding sh
after aspirates before i and e, so, in practice in Osage g : k. : k ~ ksh.
Thus he uses dotted letters (now a proper dot in both manuscript and
print) to represent tenseness rather than
voicelessness-without-aspiration. Sometimes he leaves off the dot under
tense stops, probably an oversight.  In his work with Alice Fletcher all
the dots were left off.  I have seen at least one manuscript page (the
list of river names) in which they are present, so I suspect the problem
here lies with Fletcher or the GPO, not with LaFlesche.

What I think happened with "k.oN" is that a form "k.oN" transcribed by
Dorsey, representing koN, was taken over without revising it to "goN,"
leading to a false impression that it represents kkoN.  In short, "k.oN"
in this entry represents koN, probably accidentally shorn from koNdha or
one of the more exaotic forms Rory has mentioned, though I don't know fi
these are actually attested for Osage.  The failure to revise the foirm to
goN is at least partly due, probably, to LaFlesche failing to recognize
the form at all.  This is a hypothesis, of course.  It might be
resolvable with reference to the manuscript of LaFlesche's dictionary, or
Dorsey's Osage slips.


JEK