Order of verb affixes

[are2 at buffalo.edu]

I really doubt that the u- is a locative.  I believe it derives from
wa based on other evidence.  UhoN is one of the verbs does not vary
for wa but is used as both an activity 'I am cooking' and an active
accomplishment 'I cooked it.'  The other verbs which have this
variation and don't take wa often (always?  I don't have my paper on
this right now) are u-verbs.  THus, u is functioning as the wa
activity marker there.
Synchronically, wiu is more phonetically accurate than weo and at
least as accurate as wio.  I'm not sure what advantages the student
obtains by writing -o- in such words.  I can't see any.  And, it would
mess up the general phonological patterning of -o- in Modern Omaha.  O
never occurs word medially or initially.  It's only in the male
greeting Aho and in the male illocutionary force enclitic -ho.  So,
from a synchronic standpoint, I can't see writing it with -o-.  But I
think that's essentially the debate here synchronic vs. diachronic
representation.  And that's I think beyond the list.  It's like
functional vs. formal.  I actually just meant to send the original
orthography comment to Rory off-list.  I mess that up all the time.
Sorry for mailbox clutter.
-Ardis


Quoting "R. Rankin" <rankin at ku.edu>:

> > I meant these would be potential kinds of evidence.  I don't know
> if this
> > has happened with 'cook' or any other verb and I'm not at this
> point
> > asserting that it has, though I seem to recall that cases exist of
> > anomalies with o-initial verbs in Dakotan dialects that might
> suggest it.
>
> Yeah, and if there is no analog of ohaN with, say, a- or i- in the
> language(s)
> then the o- would get no reinforcement among speakers for its
> putative status as
> a locative.  If, on the other hand, there IS an *ahaN or a *ihaN,
> then the
> reinforcement would be there and o- could be "seen" by children
> acquiring the
> language as a productive prefix.
>
> B.
>
>
>