Ho-Chunk Wa

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> In OP, wa- is also used as the patient form of "we"; i.e. "us",
> as well as for "them".  In certain contexts, however, it appears
> as awa- when it means "us" in contrast with wa- for "them".  I
> think this happens specifically with the causatives, e.g.:
>
>       t?e'awadhe        he killed us

This is correct.  I think the variant a-wa- occurs with all forms where a
heavy (verbal) proclitic precedes the pronominal.  It occurs to me
that a- here might be the same -a- that occurs as the a-variant of the
ablaut vowel, and is also inserted if there is no e to replace, with the
negative, and with postpositions like =di or =tta or =ha.  In short, a
sort of linking something that occurs between nouns (or nominalized
verbs?) and a governing element.

Be that as it may, while the regular variant of this inclusive patient
marker is wa- (or maybe wa-a-), with a-wa- in the context mentioned, there
is also a clear case of wa-a- with the i-locative and with the gi-dative,
both of which come out wea- < *wa-i-a-.

The inclusives are interesting in Mississippi Valley.  The familiar
pattern in Dakotan is invariant uN(k)- (OK, maybe invariant isn't quite
the word!) for both the agent and the patient.  But the other members of
the group all distinguish the agent and patient.

             agent   agent of dative   patient

Wi (Ho)      hiN     hiN + dative      waNaNg- ~ waNaNg-a-
IO           hiN     hiN + dative      wawa
Dh (OP)      aN(g)   iN(g)             wa(a)- ~ wa-a- ~ a-wa-
Da           uN(k)   uN + dative       uN(k)-

I've suggested in various places that the iN vowel of the Wi and IO forms
derive from a historical dative, which has replaced earlier *(h)aN-.  I
think the h here is epenthetic, though this argument doesn't work well in
IO.  The patient forms look something like *wa-( )-a-, where the medial
element can be *(h)aN(g)- (Wi), *wa- (IO), or nothing (Dhegiha).

OP iN is just a contraction of aN + (g)i, historically.

This looks a bit like variants on a wa-indefinite of an a-locative, maybe
'on ... someone'.

Bob Rankin argues that *waNaNk- is historically an incorporated noun
'person', structurally parallel to French on 'one' < *homin- 'man, person'
(not sure if I have the historical form right here).  He adduces parallel
forms glossed 'noun', though the set is somewhat irregular.

Anyway, I think that like wa- third plural it looks like it's at best
derived from wa- indefinite, rather than a very homophone of it.  It might
even be just a coincidental w-, if the source is a noun *waNaNk-.