Information / nouns vs. verbs

[Pamela Munro]

Since I am the one who started the "thathípi" thread, I've looked
through my notes to tell you what I know. First let me say that I've
studied with two Lakhota speakers (for many years each), one (whose
speech seems to me to have been very conservative) born in the early
1920s, one (a much more modern speaker) born around 1945.

I don't believe I said that <thathípi> would mean 'their house' (if I
somehow suggested that, I was incorrect). Since -pi on a possessed noun
in Lakhota means plural possessor, and I believe that for the two
speakers I worked with <thípi> means 'house', <thathípi> should be 'his
house', and if one wanted to say 'their house', following these rules,
it would be <thathípipi>.  Despite John's suggestion, I would not take
this to include two "enclitics of plurality", since (again in my view)
the -pi that occurs in <thípi> 'house' is a nominalizer. (Certainly
there is a very direct connection with plurality, and the two -pi's
should ultimately be related, but I do not think it is a plural marker
here. I realize I disagree with many of you here, but I'm just trying to
make my position clear.)

These facts lead to minimal sets like

    Wíyan thashúnka ki xlóhe.     'The woman's dog is growling'
    Wíyan thashúnka ki xlóhanpi.    The woman's dogs are growling'
    Wíyan thashúnkapi ki xlóhe.    The women's dog is growling'
    Wíyan thashúnkapi ki xlóhanpi.     'The women's dogs are growling'

confirmed by both speakers. Thus, in the variety of Lakhota I've
studied, -pi on a noun is not (in my view) a plural marker.

I do not have my notes from work with the second speaker at home, and
she is much more fond of the <tháwa> possessive construction anyway.
However, I have looked through 600 pp of notes on work with the first
speaker, and found clear confirmation for her use of the <thathípi>
possessed form, e.g. in

     Brian thathípi    'Brian's house'

I also have a manuscript that uses the form <thathípi> that I checked
with the second speaker, so I know she accepts that form. However, I
could not (indeed) find confirmation of any plural possessed forms of
'house'. (I just apparently didn't ask -- this doesn't mean anyone
rejected or refused to produce them.)

Linda's suggestion that there might be an anti-haplology rule forbidding
*-pi-pi is interesting. I don't think I had thought of this possibility.

Pam



--
Pamela Munro
Professor, Department of Linguistics, UCLA
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 USA
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/people/munro/munro.htm