Dorsey's Law

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Nancy E Hall wrote:
> Miner's Hocank Lexicon contains the word [k'orok'oros] 'be hollow'. This
> looks like a Dorsey's Law root in that it contains identical vowels
> flanking a sonorant, and it behaves like a DL root in that it reduplicates
> in its entirety.

> Similarly, the Lexicon contains [haik'InI] 'stay to protect' ([I] =
> nasalized [i]). This is like a DL root in that the vowel before the
> nasal is nasalized, but again it involves [k'].

I agree with Bob that in principle they can't be Dorsey's Law form
because there is no underlying k?r cluster.  On the other hand, the first
does at least resemble a DL form for reduplication.

I don't remember the examples, but there are one or two forms in Hollow's
Mandan Dictionary that he reduced to CRV form in his process of presenting
CVRV forms are underlyingly CRV that are probably underlyingly (or
historically, anyway) CVRV.  You have to be a bit careful with this sort
of analysis, as there are occasional medial R's.

The possible example in this line in Winnebago that I know of is the
friend term, hic^akoro, if I recall it correctly.  This is historically
something like *i-hta-k(V)ro, with *i-hta- third person possessive.  The
exact form of 'friend' is debatable, as it is a pretty irregular set and
may involve one or more borrowings from outside sources.  Resemblants
occur in Algonquian and Muskogean, for example, though, generally speaking
everybody has been content to think of all these forms (Siouan included)
as internal developments.

In any event, compare Dakotan khola, suggesting *hkoRa.  This is perhaps
somehow related to the -khota root itself, with its dependent variant
-khol, though in that case the -l- (etc., in the other dialects) in khola
is rather irregular.  We expect CCVta ~ CCVl, but not the third form
CCVla.  Given that third variant CCVla we know we have either something
irregular or something unconnected.  An easy assumption would be that
khola is the irregular form, but it is also possible that the original is
actually khola ~ khol, and that -khota is a back formation from the
latter.  This is consistant with the apparent lack of *hkot cognates,
though, of course, this is a negative evidence argument.

In that case the Dakotan and Winnebago forms are closer to matching,
though Winnebago would have to have -d- (-t- in Miner's orthography) to
match *R.  That is, -koro could come from -hkoro, which might be an
analogical modification of *hkora, but we have -r- here, and not -R-.  *R
comes out as d.  Still, given the similarity in meaning, not to mention
the weak appreciation of the *r : *R contrast between Dorsey and Kaufman,
it's generally assumed that the Dakotan and Winnebago forms are related.

JEK