argument structure k'u etc.

[REGINA PUSTET]

Hi Jan:

I have doubts about the woyute hypothesis because of the complexity of the reduction that would be required here -- John just made that point. So I'd like to ask you back: why should these forms originate in woyute rather than in wa-o- 'non-specific patient + locative prefix'? There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference in Lakota which figure as affixes, like ho- 'camp circle' or wi- 'woman'. These elements can be used as incorporated nouns, just like you assume wo- is used in my examples. But I've never heard of a wo- affix which serves as a kind of placeholder for woyute 'food'. I don't have access to a Buechel dictionary right now, maybe he has some info on that, but even then, I'd still challenge the woyute analysis.

Best,
Regina


"Jan F. Ullrich" <jfu at centrum.cz> wrote:
Hi Regina,

I'd like to ask question about the following part of you message:

> (1) w-o-'uN-k'u-pi 'they fed us (gave us things)'
> (2) w-o-'uN-ni-c'u-pi-kte 'we'll give you food (=things)'
> (3) w-o-wicha-k'u-pi 'they gave them food (=things)'


I have been under the assumtion that wo in these compounds is
a contraction of wo'yute 'food'
(wo'yute k?u' -> wo'k?u).

Can you explain why you analyze it as 'things'?

Thank you


Jan




		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger
 Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20050404/e4a189a7/attachment.htm>