Order of verb affixes

[are2 at buffalo.edu]

Rory,
Hey.  Just to be a bit anal about pronunciation, I'd
transcribe 'pepper' as WiukihoN (popular orth.) or wiukkihaN
(siouanist).  wi vs. we as a pronunciation is a bit arguable as it is
part of a glide here and as such is moving. It might be 'we' and
the 'u' raises it to sound like 'wi'.  'We' is fine by me.  The second
vowel should definitely be 'u' and not 'o' because 'o' is a very
limited phoneme in Omaha (only really on male endings - I mean
enclitics).
Cool etymology BTW!
-Ardis

PS
Ok for more needless babbling on sounds, you could compare this to
wiuga 'color' or 'crayon' which definitely sounds like /wiuga/
not /weuga/ but may well have developed from 'we' + 'uga' 'to
dye/color.'  We've always written wiuga as that is exactly how it
sounds.  There is always a question with writing how much historical
to include versus how phonetically accurate to be.  And always we make
compromises.  This comes up in class so much.  I guess my test is that
I leave it if I think it's going to help a second semester level
student to form alot of new words or be able to break down a bunch of
things easily in their heads but cut it if it is infrequent or
unproductive or used on less common nouns/phrases.  Also, I worry
about how screwy it's going to make the pronunciation when read
literally.  (we try to get a feel for how much the Native Speaker
breaks it down in their head.)  And often the Elder instructor will
say the word slowly a few times and they will make the decision (which
is the BEST). So, in the end I like weukihoN and wiukihoN but veto
weokihoN as it is less adequate phonetically (actual sounds) and
phonologically (in relation to the sound system overall in Omaha).
Now you see why I never write to the list.  Everything gets carried
away. Keep up the good work.


Quoting Rory M Larson <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu>:

>
>
>
>
> I'm just looking at a borrowed copy of Jimm Good Tracks' 1992
> dictionary of Iowa-Otoe-Missouria in comparison with OP.  I've
> run across the word for '(black) pepper', which is glossed as
> "Mixed Herbs", or
>
>      mankan iki'rohan (LR)/
>      mankan' wi'kiruhan (JY)
>
> In OP, the word for 'pepper' is
>
>      weo'kkihaN
>
> which seems to be formed from
>
>      wa-i-u-kki-haN
>
> where u-haN' means 'to cook' or 'boil'.  The entire construction
> seems to mean something like 'something that is boiled together
> (with the rest of the food)'.  In OP, verbs beginning with u-
> take their affixed personal, reciprocal, reflexive and possessive
> pronouns between the u- and the verb stem, except for 'we', which
> attaches to the front to make ugu'-.
>
> I don't know much about IOM, but it looks to me like the words
> cited for 'pepper' are essentially the same except for the
> preceding 'medicine'/'herb', but in a somewhat different order
>
>      (wa)-i-kki-u-haN
>
> with the reciprocal pronoun kki brought out in front of the u-.
>
> Am I correct in this analysis?  If so, is it normal for IOM to
> put affixed pronouns in front of the u-/o- in such verbs?  And
> if it is, then how do Hochunk and Dakotan compare on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Rory
>
>
>