ie <- i-yA

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, "Alfred W. Tüting" wrote:
> Please don't beat me, but, until up to this discussion, I always had
> 'felt' that _ie_ [i-yA] might have something to do with 'mouth' (e.g.
> going along the lines of _ipuza_) with the part _-yA_ maybe being the
> causative or the verb 'to go'.

The Dakota verb iya' 'to speak' is inflected A1 iwa'ya, A2 iya'ya, A12
uNki'ya=pi.  I think that if it where a causative it would A12
*i=uN'ya=pi, so this looks like it involves a locative i.

In OP, and, I think, other Dhegiha, there are two verbs:

i'e 'to speak (aloud)':  A1 idha'a, A12 i'dhaa, A12 aNdhaN'a=i

(?)i'=dhe 'to speak of, to say one will':  A1 i'=adhe, A2 i'=dhadhe, A12
i'=aNdha=i

The former matches the Dakota verb, allowing for changes in morphology
like A1/A2/A12 a/dha/aN(g) instead of wa/ya/uN(k), i + a > idha' (vs. i +
dha > i'dha), and i + aN > aNdhaN'.  Plural marking =i vs. =pi.

The latter form does look like mouth + CAUSE.

Of course, as Bob argues, we have to allow for analogical
recategorization.  These analyses simply assess the forms at face value.

JEK