(O)maha

[David Costa]

> I guess I misunderstood David.  I thought he meant that deletion of initial
> short vowels (which he said would have to be a-, not o-) was irregular - not
> rule governed - in Old Illinois ethnonyms but now is regular.

No no no. What I meant is that ethnonyms in old Illinois all seem to lack
word-initial short vowels where the sister languages (often) have them. Like
Illinois /saakiiwa/ 'Sauk', but Ojibwe /ozaagii/, Shawnee /ho0aaki/, but
Sauk /(o)0aakiiwa/. Or, another example, Illinois /$aaha/ 'Sioux', but Fox &
Sauk /a$aaha/, Kickapoo /wasaaha/, but Shawnee /saha/. But aside from a few
bird names which are probably onomatopoeic, these are the ONLY words in old
Illinois that lack initial short vowels that the sister languages have.
Illinois doesn't delete any other initial short vowels.

In modern Miami & Peoris (circa 1800 & after), word-initial short vowels are
often deleted, but not obligatorily. They seem to have been retained in
careful speech, at least with the more fluent speakers. Either way, an old
Illinois tribe name with a deleted vowel will always lack the vowel in the
modern language.

> So what he meant was that they were not deleted at all in Old Illinois (when
> we would expect amaha), but now they are deleted sporadically?

No, I'm just saying that word-initial short V retention is simply irregular
with tribe names. They constitute an exception. But the sister languages do
the same thing: note the missing initial vowels for the Shawnee name for the
Sioux above, or the optional deletion of the vowel in the Sauks' name for
themselves.

> I can certainly think of a few presumptive Old Illinois ethnonyms without
> initial a.  Perhaps it's only some that have the a?

In fact, all Illinois tribe names that I can find lack these short vowels.
But there are several names that are only documented in the modern language,
so the rule might have had exceptions.

> So if Old Illinois speakers got their hands on omaha or umaha (to neglect
> nasality), they would normally be expected produce amaha?

Word-initial Proto-Algonquian */o/ (*/we/ really) becomes /a/ in all records
of Illinois and Miami. So if it kept the V, it'd be */ama(a)ha/. But if
Illinois made a policy of deleting those vowels from tribe names, it'd be
*/ma(a)ha/.

> And we only know that they may perhaps have used maha because of Marquette's
> map, because otherwise their form for Omaha is unknown?  So, in fact, we don't
> know if they substituted a, lopped off o or u themselves, borrowed a
> pre-lopped form, or, quite arbitrarily pronounced it Apalachicola, which
> Marquette only misheard as Maha, because the toothless old man who mentioned
> it mumbled?

> Drat!

> Out of curiosity, what is the modern MI form for Omaha?

None is attested, sadly.

Dave