taku- vs. taku-

[Rankin, Robert L]

The 'have as a relation' *-re certainly shares with the causative the
epenthetic -r- and consequent regular pronominal prefixes, i.e., not the
"Y-stem" or "*R-stem" prefixes.  So it is either polysemous or homophonous
with the causative.  Morphological causatives have suus and reflexive forms
(often indicating permission or acquiescence of the actor).  Has anyone
tried to elicit these related forms in sentences where they would signal
relation rather than causation?  That might provide a test.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Koontz John E [mailto:John.Koontz at colorado.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:35 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: taku- vs. taku-


On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Any L/D word with first syllable stress SHOULD, theoretically, have an
> etymology that involves the loss of a vowel in front of that syllable.
> However, I have no idea whether that's true in this case, nor what the
> vowel or syllable might be.  I have long been suspicious on semantic
> grounds of equating the -yA 'to have as a relative' with the causative
> -yA, but I can't come up with any credible non-semantic evidence to
> distinguish them.  I hope you'll get an informed answer from someone else.

This is indeed a surprising function - at least it was to me initially,
before I got used to it - it does seem to be the causative.  Parallels in
other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages are always the causative stem of
that language - yA in Dakotan, dhE in Omaha-Ponca, hi in Winnebago, etc.

For what it's worth, Omaha-Ponca uses gaghe 'to make' in the sense of 'to
perform, to imitate, to act as if one were', e.g., for a shaman magically
behaving as a particular bird or animal.  This strikes me as at least
analogous.

JEK