argument structure k'u etc.

[are2 at buffalo.edu]

I spoke to a Native Speaker about this and, in his words, it is
the 'w' and not the 'o' or the 'a.'  He related the wa and wo forms
and noted that in certain contexts (before uN) it can be hard to
distinguish which is more appropriate (maybe even it is just the
orthographic convention of the writer?).  So, his intuition did not
involve a food-related analysis.  I wish I had written everything he
said down, but I didn't.  There was more to it.  I am thankful for his
sharing (he said to go ahead and post this) and ask to be excused of
any inadequacies of my memory.
-Ardis


Quoting REGINA PUSTET <pustetrm at yahoo.com>:

> [on analysis of wok'u 'to feed']
>
> Surely if it was the indefinite, it would be wa- not wo-. It does
> occur in
> a number of other examples, where it looks as though it might be from
> woyute
> as in s^ungwok'u 'give food to horses', wocin 'ask for food', woai
> 'bring
> food to', but also occurs as wol- (with presuambly the -t- of wota
> 'eat
> things' becoming an -l as in wolkagli 'bring food to'.
> Bruce
>
> There is a well-known morphophonemic rule in Lakota which prescribes
> that wa- when preceding o- contracts into (stressed) wo-. In other
> words, assuming a basic verb form ok'u, we wouldn't get wa-ok'u, but
> rather, wo-k'u. So there is nothing that keeps us from analyzing
> wok'u as containing wa- 'non-specific patient' (I avoid the term
> indefinite). Buechel does have an entry ok'u 'to lend, give food to
> etc.' The examples that document this contraction are legion in the
> Buechel dictionary, e.g. wokiyaka 'to speak to', wokah^nig^a 'to
> understand', wohaN 'to cook, boil'.
>
> Regina
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com