any more chairs?

[Rory M Larson]

Carolyn wrote:
> MO-NI is a possible rendering for OS maNdhiN' where the nasal quality has
> spread to the dh.  One hears a few of these in certain Osages' speech.
If
> someone wrote this in a version of Osage, this maNdhiN is the imperative
> (uninflected) or merely the ininflected form, which is a form that could
be
> used optionally (alternative to the inflected form in this construction).
> I'd sort of lean to an imperative.  Like "We make the wish: that you walk
in
> peace".

> But it could be as you say, inflected for 2s in Kaw with hn (is that
right
> for Kaw?).  In Osage 2s is maNs^ciN' so it's clearly not that!  If we
want
> it not to be Osage, this is the best choice, I guess.

Ah!  I hadn't realized that!

I believe Bob said that Kaw had hn for 2s, and that is the
way it is in OP.  Also, the La Flesche Osage dictionary
conjugates 2s as moN-ni.

Just to stick my neck out a little further, I might
mention something one of our Omaha speakers stressed
to me a few months ago.  She said that there was a
distinction in asking about "having" something, as
follows:

  KinoN'noNge aniN' a?
  Do you have (possess) a car?

  KinoN'noNge (kHe) ashniN' a?
  Do you have (your) car (along with you)?

I've told Ardis about this, but I don't think I've
brought it up to the list before.

Is it possible that there are actually two grades
of you- inflection for dh-verbs?  One which tends
to preserve the original s^, and one which drops it?

Rory