Our wish

[Carolyn Quintero]

In Osage there is e'bre (and e'kibre) for 'I believe' from, presumably,
e'dhe 'believe', so I go along with the analysis of 'we think/believe' as
the best candidate for aNdhe , which would be the expected 1p form of e'dhe.

Then 1p  aNdhe is represented on the chair as oNdhe, not surprisingly since
modern aN was in LF oN; and dhe, as mentioned, becomes dha before i.

So I would take the phrase koN'oNtha iha to be something like 'we make the
wish'.

Then the whole thing loosely glossed would be approximately:
"Our wish: Friend(s), go forth supremely untroubled!"
( Or: Our wish: Friend, walk in peace, go forth in peace, etc. )

Peacefully,
Carolyn



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of Rory M Larson
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:05 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: a wish?



>> Both roots are inflected here, except in the 'we' form, where it
>> appears only in front.  I don't know the non-I forms of the "would
>> like" and "wish" expressions.  It's notable, though, that the last
>> form, "I wish", uses /koN/ followed by the word /ebdhe'goN/, which is
>> exactly the word for "I think" in modern OP.

> I suspect that the kkoN is in all cases the first person.  There doesn't
> seem to be any reason to slip from goN to kkoN in non-firsts.  Cognates
of
> this verb in MVS generally have *k, not *hk (i.e., in OP or Ks terms g,
> not kk, or in Os terms k, not hk or kk, depending on how we write that
> sound).

I agree.  That's why I decided to use /koN/ rather than /kkoN/ above.
In OP, *koN should come out /goN/, and in Os. it should be /koN/.
The inscription seems to be some mix of OP and Os. orthography, at
least, and I think the Os. version got used here.  In the La Flesche
dictionary of Osage, 'g' is used for the unmarked "want" term "goN'tha",
while a dotted 'k' is used for the I-form "koNbtha", as well as the
word "koN", "to wish or to desire", the word "koN", "root" or "vein"
(which is /kkoN/ in OP), and the word "koN'tha", "attack/charge/raid/
threaten".  I don't think we can rely on either La Flesche or the
redactor of the chair inscription to consistently distinguish *k from
*hk.


>> If /goN'dha/ is understood as a single verb, "want", then the we-form
>> should add the /oN-/ to the beginning of the verb to get /oNgoN'dha/.
>> But if the strategy is to keep the *koN separate from the "we think",
>> then the /oN-/ should attach to the root *(e)dha, "think", giving us
>> /goN oNdha/ (OP) or /koN oNdha/ (Os.).

> I'm afraid that this doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and that -
the
> morphology - is why I rejected the 'we wish' analysis.

What do you find implausible about it?  We have two roots,
*koN, meaning "wish" and *(e)dha (?) meaning "think".  These
are combined as *koN'dha to form the common word "want".
Both roots are inflected with the I and you affixed pronouns.
The 'we' affixed pronoun attaches only to the front, at least
where "want" is the meaning.  However, it must have attached
to *(e)dha at least historically, when the latter was an
independent verb.  Wouldn't the result have been something
like *oNdha?

In OP, we have the common word /goN'dha/, meaning "want",
but we also have a couple of other related terms, at least in
the first person singular, and at least in the 19th century,
that mean something a little different.  One of these is
/kkoN' ebdhe'goN/, "I wish I think", meaning "I wish".  Do
we have an attested we-form of this?  If not, how would you
construct it?

One other question: Are the words /kudha/, "friend", and
/ugas^e/, "ailment", attested for OP?  Perhaps they are in
the Dorsey dictionary; they are not in Stabler and Swetland,
and I don't remember ever running across them in Dorsey, or
hearing them from our speakers.

Rory