Lexical compounds, syntactic compounds, and truncation

[Koontz John E]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 rwd0002 at unt.edu wrote:
> In verb compounding (or incorporation, or, as I prefer to call it: verb
> serialization) the situation with regard to truncation is quite
> different.  In verb compounding of the lexical kind there is always
> truncation (unless of course the first verb is not truncatable by its
> phonological nature, e.g.  because it is monosyllabic, or the last
> syllable is untruncatable).  In verb compounding of the syntactic kind,
> there is always truncation as well (again if phonology allows it).  And
> in a third kind of serialization: verb stripping (i.e. two verbs in a
> construction without any stress reduction), there is truncation as well!
> So truncation has something to do with serialization, but not with the
> lexical vs. syntactic vs. stripping distinction.

This is in line with the possibility that truncation, or at least
consonant-final form, is an indicator of subordination.  I'm a bit
reluctant to use the term truncation here because I use that to refer to
something that happens in Dhegiha (and possibly Dakota), in which the last
(or sometimes the first) syllable is removed, including its consonants.

There are assentially two contexts for truncation in Omaha-Ponca.  One is
in diminutives of kinterms:

(The following sometimes involve truncated z^iNga' 'little'.)

isaN'ga 'his/her little brother':  saN(z^iN)
ini'si 'his/her child':  si(z^iN)
ittu's^pa 'his/her grandchild':  s^pa

These forms in Omaha-Ponca always have a following =dhaN (female vocative)
or =dhe (male vocative).  These vocative particles are unique to the
truncated forms.

The usual Kaw term for 'her little brother' is isaNyaN which is apparently
based on the truncated feminine in vocative form.  Osage uses the form
ihtaNz^iN for 'little sister', a truncation from *htaNke 'little sister,
man's older sister'.

This form of truncation also occurs in some Dakotan forms for suNka'ku
'his/her little brother', e.g., Teton mi(N)suN 'my little brother' (also
the vocative) alternating with mi(N)suNka=la, and for thaNka'ku 'her
little sister', e.g., Teton mi(N)thaN ~ mi(N)thaNka=la 'my little sister'
(also the vocative).  The final organic -ka of 'little brother' and the
final organic -ka of 'little sister' are deleted.   This si different from
what happens when a final vowel is delted (or not included, as the case
may be).

A second context for truncation in Omaha-Ponca is in noun compounds, where
a leading element can lose its final syllable, e.g.:

s^aNttaNga 'wolf' < s^aNge + ttaNga 'big dog' (though it looks like 'big
horse' today)

waz^iNttu 'bluebird' < waz^iNga + ttu 'blue bird'

iNgdhaNsiNsnede 'mountain lion' < iNgdhaNga + siNde + snede 'long tailed
cat'

There are a few others of these.  I suspect that they are the phonological
outcome of something like the Dakotan loss of the final vowel in
CVC-roots.  In Omaha-Ponca (Dhegiha), however, the final consonant is also
(or subsequently) lost, too, thus avoiding the impossible clusters (or
consonant finals) that would occur in s^aNk-ttaNga, waz^iNk-ttu, or
iNgdhaNk-siNt-snede.  I can't say if these examples are essentially
holdovers from Proto-Dhegiha or more productively formed within
Omaha-Ponca, though I believe most of the forms like this are attested
elsewhere in Dhegiha.  For the most part all these compounds are perfectly
transparent in Omaha-Ponca, too, however.

An example of a compound that isn't transparent would be ha'zi 'grape' <
haz + hi 'berry' + 'stem'.  We can tell this is a compound because the
regularly expected form would be *haze, compare Da haza.  Of course, part
of the reason hazis is not transparent is that *haze doesn't exist.

Anyway, I'm a little reluctant to refer to alternations like s^uNka ~
s^uNk in Dakotan as "truncation."  I'm not sure I have a better term to
suggest, other than consonant-final.  Maybe reduced?