(O)maha

[Alan Hartley]

Koontz John E wrote:

> It suddenly occurred to me, speculatively, that the truncation of initial
> O in Omaha might be either this form of affective truncation or, equally,
> it might be the result of taking it to be aux 'at the'.  I don't know that
> Omaha is ever attested in the early accounts.  So perhaps Omahas was
> reanalyzed as 'aux Mahas'?

Can maha stand alone (without the [locative?] o-) in Dhegiha? The
earliest record I know of is Marquette's Maha in 1673, and I don't
recall any examples of 'aux Mahas' (though bear in mind that my recall
sometimes falls short!)

Alan