ASB puza

[Heike Bödeker]

At 09:54 09.08.03 -0700, David Costa wrote:
> >> Given the morphological transparency of *meh$ipe$iwa ('big bobcat'),
> it might
> >> not be of Proto-Algonquian or even Proto-Central Algonquian vintage.
>
> > Why should transparency preclude a certain age? I mean, it certainly is the
> > other way round, that an eroded form as a rule won't be particularly fresh,
> > except when dealing with allegro forms or disfigurement for taboo reasons.
>
>I wouldn't call */pe$iwa/ an 'eroded form', simply the noun that lacks the
>'big' prenoun.

Oops, misunderstanding... I was mentioned erosion merely in contrast to
transparency, and of course it doesn't apply in the cases mentioned in this
thread. I also can't really think of Algonquian analogies to processes like
say the prefix preemption ubiquitious in Tibeto-Burman, hence my skepticism
regarding correlations of transparency and age.

>... Far as I can tell, */meh$ipe$iwa/ is found in most the Great Lakes
>languages and nowhere else, and in half of these languages it actually
>indicates the mythical underwater panther and not plain old pumas.

Of course that's what's left after the puma has vanished from more than the
Eastern half of N America (sauf the Florida Panther), excluding most of the
Subarctic (from which to in this case, however, exclude almost all of
Interior BC).

>It's entirely true that the Proto-Algonquian homeland is still nebulous.
>However, it's quite possible to state that certain animals WERE present in
>the PA homeland, and certain others were not. For example, moose, skunks,
>and elk were unquestionably present in the PA homeland, wherever it was,
>while, say, possums, alligators and coyotes were very likely not, even tho
>many modern Algonquian languages have coined names for them. Of course many
>other animals are much less clear candidates one way or the other.

Of course, there always is a possibility of semantic shifts, and we know
from Comparative Indo-European how unpleasurable urheimat debates grounded
on designations of plants and animals are.

> > In any event, the Proto-Algonquians would no doubt have had contact
> with the
> > mountain lion since it's original habitat included all of what is now
> southern
> > Canada.
>
>Can we actually verify this? I know that animal ranges now are generally
>drastically different from what they were 500 years ago, but my sources SEEM
>to indicate that mountain lions weren't present in Canada east of the
>Rockies -- tho that could well be just due to habitat loss. Either way, I
>would like to verify where mountain lions lived pre-contact, if possible.

I did check biological resources more than a decade ago. Probably these
days there also will good maps to be found on the web.

All the best,

Heike