Non-wa Nominalizations

[R. Rankin]

Quapaw has confused the two roots, e:he and ie (which as in Omaha is sometimes
written iye, but with the same result since /y/ isn't otherwise a phoneme in
QU).  I think that, although historically these may have been bimorphemic,
synchronically they're roots nowadays.  This is probably true of a lot of i-
prefixed verbs.  I- seems to have a greater amount of abstraction associated
with it than the other "locatives".  It is opaque with lots of verbs throughout
Mississippi Valley Siouan.  Ie is just infixing like mani 'walk'.  Otherwise I
can't explain the failure to insert [d, dh, y] etc. in the Dhegiha dialects.
Maybe there was a glottal stop once upon a time. . .

Bob

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
> > Good question.  I think you'd have to say that the epenthesis doesn't
> > occur WITHIN roots.
>
> But it's not clear that i'e is a root, i.e., it seems to be bimorphemic.
> It is inflected by infixation, iae, idhae, etc.  And you have datives like
> i'gie.  Of course it's not entirely clear what the i'- is but I assume
> it's a locative.  If the root is the root of (e=)e 'to say' (A1 ehe, A2
> es^e, A3 a=i), then that is historically something like *he, and that h
> might explain why i'e is i'e and not i'dhe.  However, the root is not
> inflected (within recorded OP) as A1 *i(p)he, A2 *is^e, A3 *i'(h)e.  On
> the other hand, the first and second persons are what Winnebago and
> Chiwere have for first persons of ee' 'to say'.  (Winnebago has hi-, of
> course, not i-.)  How did that work in Quapaw?
>
> JEK
>