error in previous message

[ROOD DAVID S]

I meant wicha-ma-la-pi to mean (possibly) 'they asked THEM for me', not
*'they asked me for you.' Sorry.

David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, ROOD DAVID S wrote:

>
> Jan's question about whether we can also use two objects of other persons
> is an important one here.  Are "nimak'upi" and/or "manic'upi" possible?
> What about something like uNnic'upi 'they gave you to us/they gave us to
> you' (the expected reading of this one, of course, is 'we gave it to
> you'). It also occurs to me to wonder whether the verb la 'ask for' works
> like k'u. Can one say wicha-ma-la-pi 'they asked me for you'? (I think
> this 'for' is not benefactive, but rather that the verb means 'ask to
> have', doesn't it?  If so, then we have a possible two-object verb
> without "benefactive" as one of the core argument roles.)
>
>
> David S. Rood
> Dept. of Linguistics
> Univ. of Colorado
> 295 UCB
> Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> USA
> rood at colorado.edu
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jan Ullrich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I have been musing about the wicha-ma-k'u-pi for some time. In fact, I
> > posted on this verb form on 29 February 2000, but it didn't arouse much
> > interest on the list.
> >
> > I encountered it in the following sentence:
> >
> > Tona wicha'mak?u kiN hena' waNzhi'ni wauN'mni kte shni.
> > >From those he gave me I shall lose none.
> >
> > However, the previous sentence of the same text says:
> >
> > Ate tona mak?u kiN hena' oyas?iN el mau'pi kte.
> > All of those that my father gave me will come to me.
> >
> > In both instances the object is animate according to the context.
> >
> > At that time I finally came to a conclusion the wicha'mak?u was some sort of
> > error. Mainly because the text was a translation from English (Buechel's
> > Lakota translation of Bible History) and I believe the results of
> > translations are often unidiomatic. And also, because the use of mak?u for
> > 'he gave them to me' is frequent and common, while I could only one
> > occurrence of wicha'mak?u in this meaning.
> >
> > Therefore I am very surprised by Linda's Assiniboin sentence with
> > wicha'mak?u of the same reading. I always get mak?u from speakers when
> > eliciting sentences like "he gave me two horses" (ShuNkawakhaN nuNpa mak?u).
> >
> > I also found wicha'mak?u with the meaning "they gave ME to them" as in the
> > sentence recorded by Regina:
> >
> > Thoka'mayaNpi thawa'chiNpi kiN en wicha'mak?u shni wo.
> > = Don't give me to the will of my enemies.
> >
> > This time it is from Riggs/Renvile's Dakota translation of Bible.
> > Riggs/Renvile use mak?u consistently for 'he gave THEM to me'.
> >
> >
> > There is another suspicious verbal form of this kind in Buechel's biblical
> > translation:
> >
> > nima'kahipi = they brought you to me.
> >
> >
> > So I wonder what would be used for expressing "they gave YOU to me" and
> > "they gave ME to you"
> > Would it be nimak'upi and manic'upi respectively, or would one or both of
> > these forms be considered ungrammatical and some other structure would be
> > employed?
> >
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > lcumberl at indiana.edu
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:12 AM
> > > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > > Subject: Re: argument structure of k'u 'give'
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU>:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Could it also mean 'they were given to me'?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have this in my data for Asb:
> > >
> > > pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi  'they gave me the kittens'
> > >
> > > Linda
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Příchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
> > > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
> > > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004
> > >
> > ---
> > Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
> > Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
> > Verze: 6.0.795 / Virová báze: 539 - datum vydání: 12.11.2004
> >
> >
>