Just plain Prairie People

[David Costa]

>> However: there is no evidence that this means "Little Prarie People" within
>> Illinois, or, indeed, that it's any kind of diminutive at all. The old
>> Illinois initial for 'prairie' is indeed /maskotee-/ (modern Miami
>> /mahkotee-/), but the problem is that */masko(o)teenta/ does not contain any
>> recognizable Miami-Illinois diminutive suffix. In fact, the ending of this
>> name, the /-nta/ part, is not recognizable.

> What would happen if it was **/masko(o)teensa/?   Not that I have any theory
> as to how -eenta in this one word could become -eensa!  Other than borrowing,
> which you suggest.

Well, IF it were **/masko(o)teensa/ (which is what the sister languages seem
to have, significantly), that would be a diminutive. But, bottom line,
Miami-Illinois does NOT have **/masko(o)teensa/, nor is there any way to get
from **/masko(o)teensa/ to /masko(o)teenta/.

>> However, considering how freely tribe names are shared back and forth among
>> Algonquian languages, it's highly likely that Miami-Illinois borrowed
>> */masko(o)teenta/ from some neighboring Algonquian language, possibly the
>> Mascoutens themselves. That is, there might be some other neighboring
>> language where that ending is analyzable. Several similar names for the
>> Mascouten are given on pages 671-2 of HNAI, volume 15.

>> Now, alongside */masko(o)teenta/ there is another tribe name, old Illinois
>> /masko(o)tia/ 'Illinois' (<masc8tea>; again, the length on the 2nd V is
>> uncertain), which you cite below, and its modern Miami equivalent
>> /meehko(o)tiaki/ (plural), .... This latter form also has matches in a couple
>> neighbor languages, i.e., Sauk /ma$kooteewa/ 'Peoria', and Meskwaki
>> /ma$kooteewa/~/mee$kooteewa/, also 'Peoria'. ('$' = s-wedge) This name is not
>> attested in Miami-Illinois after the 1820's.

>> Clearly these forms all ultimately come from Proto-Algonquian */ma$kote:wi/
>> 'prairie' in some way, but I don't see how the 'small prairie'/'big prairie'
>> analysis can be made to fit the linguistic evidence. Forms like Illinois
>> /masko(o)tia/ 'Illinois' and the Sauk/Meskwaki cognates very likely do have
>> an ultimate etymology 'prairie person', but there's no way to analyze
>> Illinois */masko(o)teenta/ 'Mascouten' as 'little prairie person'.

> I don't see why we have to compare the Illinois */asko(o)eenta/ form per se
> with the Illinois */masko(o)tia/ form, Sauk /ma$kooteewa/, etc., forms.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Isn't this comparison what you
were asking me to do?

> It appears that we have widely attested 'prairie person' for Illinois (or some
> subgroup thereof) and 'little prairie person' (or once '(unanalyzable) prairie
> person') for Mascouten, which is exactly what I was getting at.

But my point merely was that there is no linguistic evidence whatever for
any of these Illinois forms containing anything that means 'little'. So I
hesitate to say that the Illinois name for the Mascoutens means 'little
prairie person' when it lacks any kind of recognizable diminutive. (And we
have a very good idea what the diminutive endings look like in
Miami-Illinois.)

> So, is there any grammatical objection to the diminutive applying to the whole
> 'prairie person' as opposed to just the 'prairie'?

What diminutive?

> If not, the analogy with pairs like Yankton/Yanktonais or Nadowe/Nadowesiw
> (forgive my spellings), or even Shahi(a)/Cheyenne seems clear enough.  There's
> an areal pattern of using X/little X as a scheme for distinguishing two
> peoples with similar names, however they may have come by the similar names.

The Illinois names are obviously related, but I can't sign off on a 'prairie
person/little prairie person' analysis for that language.

Dave Costa