Wo(ta) (RE: argument structure k'u etc.)

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Jan F. Ullrich wrote:
RP> There are some biphonemic classificatory prefixes with nominal reference

JU> This is actually what I had in my mind. On page 71 Boas&Deloria
> actually list wo- ('food') among those "nominal prefixes" you mention
> above. This was where I was coming from but couldn't remember the source
> until I made a search for it.

When I saw Regina's comment I got to thinking I might have seen something
like wo = woyuta in Boas & Deloria, but I hadn't gotten around to checking
it yet.  Since we have the contracted form wota, I suppose one could argue
that wo- as a classificatory prefix is from wol-, which seem plausible.
For example, Dakota speakers of the previous century - the century before
last I guess, now - seemed to find it plausible that Thi(N)thuN(waN)
'Teton' should be derived from thiNta + thuNwaN, presumably via
thiNl-thuNwaN [thiNnthuN(w)aN].

Wota itself is consistent with the A1 wate, A2 yate inflection of yuta (if
I remember), which is paralleled by Winnebago A1 haac^, A2 raac^, A3
ruuc^.  This suggests something unusual about yuta - PMVS *ru(u)t, or
perhaps is a bit of Dakotan irregularity that has been transferred into
Winnebago.

I hope I'm getting the final vowel of yuta correct in the various forms
above!

However, all this aside, I still suspect wok?u < wa-o-k?u.  It seems to
have a sort of partitive sense.

JU> I agree with you (and John) and the reduction of wo'yute to wo'-
> seems rather complex. But I can't help the feeling that I have seen
> something of this type happening. I don't remember what it was but if I
> run into it again, this time I would keep record.

If there are other examples of this it would certainly be interesting.  I
seem to recall hearing that there are sometimes drastic simplications in
Algonquian compounds.