PMV 'want'

[Jimm GoodTracks]

John:
IO   guNna <  guNra   (1S  haguN=ta; 2S  raguNsda)

Jimm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: "Siouan List" <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:29 AM
Subject: PMV 'want'


> 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
>
>
>