Status of "u" in Omaha-Ponca

[Rankin, Robert L]

That IS interesting.  The full(er) story of the Siouan change is that it
affects Omaha, Ponca (presumably as a single change) and also Quapaw.  I
suspect the latter change is distinct and parallel, since Quapaw lacks
important features that ALL the other 4 Dhegiha languages developed
(e.g., use of -akha, -aWa as agentive articles).  

Kansa and Osage both preserve the intermediate stage with a
front-rounded U-umlaut (plus the other 4 normal vowels).  A few words
with U-umlaut occur in Dorsey's Quapaw notes, but not his typescripts
where he normalizes.

I have also written about this as a possible accomodation to Algonquian
dialects that have 4 vowel systems AND the C1C2 > C1C1 change that
Dhegiha underwent.

I'd have expected Kaw and Osage to have had the close contact with
Wichita, as they seem to borrow the numeral 'eight', /kkiyadoba,
hkidhatopa/ from Wichita.  The Osages have a folk etymology for it that
doesn't quite fit.

Bob

> I am intrigued by this information, even though I probably knew it
once, because the major difference between Wichita and Pawnee vowels is
that Wichita merged [u] and [i] to /i/.  There are traces of the old *u
in the morphophonemics.  Some rules that apply before /i/ don't apply
before certain /i/s, namely, those that go back to *u.  Wichita then had
a three vowel system with no front/back distinction: i/e/a.  More
recently they have evolved an /o:/ from VwV sequences, but I know of
only one word with a short "o" in the whole language, and it's suspect,
too, because it's /ho'os/, i.e. has a medial glottal stop and the two
instances harmonize. I have no etymology for it, so it stands as a
unique instance of that phoneme.
	I wonder about some sort of areal phenomenon now.  That sound
change strikes me as kind of unusual. (I know about conditioned umlaut
and unrounding, e.g. foot/feet, of course, but that's not an
unconditioned
merger.)
	Best,
	David

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Rankin, Robert L wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> Yes, proto-Siouan *u merged with "i" just as you say.  But THEN, 
> afterward, "o" began being pronounced as "u".  So nowadays there are 
> still only 4 oral vowels, i, e, a, u.  (As recently as the 1970's I 
> was still hearing many of the modern "u" sounds still pronounced as 
> "o".
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Ogalala2 at aol.com
> Sent: Sat 8/13/2005 12:18 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Status of "u" in Omaha-Ponca
>
>
>     I need the Dheghan scholars to clarify the status of "u" in 
> Omaha-Ponca.  I was surprised to hear that Om-Po "u" was lost leaving 
> only four oral vowels in this language. This loss occurred when 
> u>ue>i.  The oral "u" (not fronted) occurs in the works of Fletcher & 
> La Flesche, Dorsey, Boaz, and all others that I am familiar with. How 
> is this to be explained?  Is the loss of "u" a recent occurrence?  Is 
> there another explanation?  Please clarify this issue for me.
>
> Thanks, Ted Grimm
>
>