Siouan "have" verb

[Rory M Larson]

John wrote:
> This verb thaN is sometimes translated 'be plentiful', but I think it is
> possibly more like 'be provided with'.  Dorsey writes it explicitly as
> thaN, with an opening apostrophe, but I am not sure it isn't ttaN.  I
> don't really trust his explicit aspiration marking in OP, because of
> several cases where it turned out not to be correct.

We've recently asked our speakers about this, and I think
we got a strong affirmation that the word is indeed ttaN,
not tHaN.

I've always wondered about that rare "opening apostrophe"
in Dorsey.  So it is supposed to indicate explicit
aspiration?  But don't we also encounter it after the 'd'
in d(u'ba, 'some', as opposed to du'ba, 'four'?  (My opening
parenthesis being used for Dorsey's opening apostrophe here.)


> didhadi    dhathaN'    ede=s^te
> his-father you-had-him unexpected=soever
> 'even if you had a father'
>
> Here I think the use of thaN might be dictated by the skepticism.

I'm pretty sure I've seen ttaN used in Dorsey for a man
"having" a son, in a situation that I don't think was in
any way irrealis.

> However, for kin, the causative is normal:
>
> ihaN'=adhe his-mother=I-made-her 'I had her for a mother'

I wonder if ttaN and the causative don't reflect two
different levels of "kinship-having", rather like the
stereotypical "Anglo-Saxon" and "Norman French" levels
in English.

The word ttaN would be "Anglo-Saxon".  It would be the
original basic word for "having" a relative, where one
is speaking of blood relationship and real nuclear family
dependencies.

The causative would be "Norman French".  It would be used
for relationships assumed for high-level social, economic
and political purposes.  These relationships would often
be technically fictitious, but publically recognizing them
would define mutual support obligations.  They would also
define whom one could or could not marry within the clan
system.  This usage should have evolved along with the
clan and tribal system, and it would be used when one
wanted to stress the standard social obligations of a
relationship.  "I had her for a mother", causative, would
imply that she and I were in a recognized social relationship
in which she acted as a mother to me.  "Even if you had a
father", dhattaN', would imply that you do not have a known
sire who is still alive.


> Also:
>
> z^u' dhathaN' 'you had a body'

Yes.  And nE'xetti-sihi'-ttaN, 'a skillet with legs'.

"Having" a body, and "having" certain parts characteristically,
seem to be in the realm of ttaN.

> This verb thaN is sometimes translated 'be plentiful', but I think it is
> possibly more like 'be provided with'.

I agree, though there does seem to be some connotation of
abundance, too.  Perhaps 'be _comfortably_ provided with'?

We've tried to nail down the difference between ttaN and
adhiN' with our speakers, and I think there may be a range
of overlap where either is acceptable.  I suspect also that
adhiN' is coming to replace ttaN.  But what experience I
have with these terms suggests the following distinction
to me:

  ttaN - to have, in a characteristic or elemental way
         that is independent of societal allocation.

  adhiN' - to have, in an immediate way, or in a way that
           is dependent upon the agreement of others.

So:

  maN'zeska ttaN - to have money characteristically,
                   to be wealthy.

  maN'zeska adhiN' - to have money immediately,
                     e.g. in one's pocket.

But a name or title is socially dependent; hence:

> Ttiu'dhiNba iz^a'z^e abdhiN 'My name is Lightening in the Lodge'


> I think adhiN' is normally 'have' in the sense of having
> something that can exist without being possessed.  So it wouldn't be
> normal with kin.
>
> But:
>
> PpaN'kka iNs^?a'ge wiN abdhI 'an old Ponca man I had' (Dorsey thinks
>   someone unrelated living with the family, somebody supported out of a
>   sense of responsibility - "I kept him" - but I wonder if the letter's
>   author means a father-in-law.)

Perhaps, though it doesn't seem to be specified.  In other
postings, John and Bob have discussed the possibility that
adhiN' is derived from a-dhiN, where dhiN is the verb 'to
be (a member of a set)'.  The suggestion is that this is
something like 'it is to me' type constructions in some
European languages.  If that is the case, then we should
realize that our 'have' word adhiN' is much "lighter" than
the English word 'have'.  It might indicate something more
like accompaniment than possession or relationship.  "I had
an old Ponca man" might just mean "I had an old Ponca man
(along with me)", rather than "I had an old Ponca man (as a
slave or relative)".

Rory