Da -c^haghA < *k-kaghE or *-y-aghE (was RE: glides, etc.)

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> (Basic stem) > Lak.   kagha    would = Omaha gaghe
> (Suus stem?) > Assin. gijagha  would = Omaha gigaghe assuming it exists.
> (Suus stem)  > Lak.   kichagha would = Omaha giaghe (dative stem)
>
> Or it might be Omaha gikkaghe 'to make one's own' (suus stem).  OP
> *gigaghe doesn't exist, except as the underlying form of the dative
> stem.
>
> AND the reconstructed form for the OM dative, though, so ultimately we have
> to deal with the -g- as part of the problem.  It's "there"; you just can't
> see it.  :-)

I certainly agree with that - I just thought we were wondering about
surface forms.

Incidentally, this is the stem where "Southern Dhegiha" (using that term
quite informally at this point) has as the dative stem khighe or ks^ighe,
as this comes out in Osage and, I think, Kaw, the Quapaw version being
unknown.  That stem is then inflected regularly.

> I have comments on the *r/*R distinction in the paper I did on the
> comparative method for the handbook of Hist. Ling.  Basically, it's one of
> those "you can nearly get rid of it" cases familiar from Indo-European.

You can come close to getting rid of it in the *R/t direction, too.  That
"you can nearly get rid of it" characterization applies widely to various
Siouan language phonemes, for that matter.

The reasons I like to point out the cases where *r merges with *R in
clusters are (1) it must tell us something about the phonetics of *R,
though I'm not sure just what.  Maybe *r is trilled, but *R is tapped?
Also, (2) it seems to be overlooking something to carry the same set of
reflexes along in (some) *Cr clusters and the *R sets without saying
something about it.  Finally, (3) it looks to me, when this behavior of
*Cr is arranged tabularly, as if there is a sort of cline of increased *r
> *R behavior across the dialects in Mississippi Valley.

JEK