argument structure of k'u 'give'

[cantemaza]

 From my perspective and how I speak Dakota, your correction is accurate

-Cantemaza de miye do.
(neil mckay)
Dakota Language Dept.
University of Minnesota
612-624-6808

lcumberl at indiana.edu wrote:

>I need to correct some information I sent back in November:
>
>"I have this in my data for Asb:
>
>pusapina wiNc^ha-ma-k'u-pi  'they gave me the kittens'"
>
>I noted that several people found this odd, and when I was checking some other
>data with one of my consultants today - in fact, the one who gave me the above
>example - she rejected it when I repeated it to her. I tried several other
>sentences that might have produced wicha-ma-k'u and she rejected all of them. So
>it appears that the original example was an error.
>
>s^uka yamni mak'u   'he gave me three dogs'   *wichamak'u
>
>but:
>
>s^uka yamni wicha-mnuha 'I have three dogs'
>
>suNkathaNka yamni ophe-wicha-wa-thuN 'I bought three horses'
>
>Her feeling is that, when used with k'u, wicha refers only to people, as she
>says "wicha is 'man', like those men, a bunch of people." She could not think of
>situation in which wich-ma-k'u would be acceptable. It's as if wicha has a
>different, more literal, meaning to her when it is used with k'u. When it is
>used with other verbs, as in the two acceptable sentences above, she does not
>perceive wicha as referring to people.
>
>
>Just wanted to set the record straight.
>
>Linda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>