butterfly

[Rory M Larson]

John wrote:
> The question is, of course, whether the Omaha-Ponca
> form is in any way connected. [...]
> I can't make anything of all this except that the
> ...ninikka part looks a lot like Winnebago
> miNiNmiNiNke form.  The -kka matches -ke regularly, but
> the reduplicated part has ni(N)ni(N) instead of miNmiN.

We do have a precedent of Proto-Dhegiha *miN > OP ni(N)
in the case of 'moon', don't we?  Isn't OP ni'oNba
derived from PDh *miN'-aNpa, meaning something like
'moonlight'?  Could this be regular under certain
conditions, like when the *miNiN is long, or when
there is a following syllable beginning with a nasal?
(This second rule would cover the first syllable in
reduplication-- *miNmiN => *niNmiN, and the second
would follow in recognition that it was a replication
of the first: hence *miNmiN => *niNniN.)

Rory