Loans Back and Forth: 'bow'

[David Costa]

I can't speak to the Siouan forms, but I can say that since the 'bow' etymon
is semantically transparent in Algonquian, I doubt if it was ever borrowed
back into Algonquian.

Dave

> Thinking about loans back and forth, it occurred to me that I've explained
> the -ku in some Siouan 'bow' terms as a reflex of the ...(e)kw- part of
> the Algonquian form, but several Siouan languages form third person
> inalienable possessives with a suffix -ku (Dakotan) or a prefix ko-
> (Mandan).  I wonder if a hypothetical Proto-Siouan *maN(aN)t-e-ku (or
> *-ko) 'his bow', if borrowed into Algonquian, wouldn't, if rendered
> animate, come out me:ntekw-a.  Then I'd have to wonder if the IO forms
> maN(aN)hdu and the Wi one maNaNc^gu might not result from borrowing a form
> like that back, while cases like Omaha-Ponca maNaNde might occur, not by
> truncating the Algonquian loan, but lacking the -ku Px3 marker in an
> original Siouan form.
>
> Or maybe the IO and Wi forms reflect a variant morphology *maN(aN)t-ku
> instead of the *maN(aN)t-e-ku suggested in the Algonquian forms and the
> loans were all one way, Siouan to Algonquian?  In that case Dhegiha would
> simply have a third variant *maN(aN)t-e.
>
> On the other hand, the variation between aN and iN in Siouan forms, cf.
> Da ita(-zipa) or Ks (?) miN(iN)j^e, has been explained as the result of
> handling -e- in the Algonquian forms.
>
> Which came first, the Siouan or the Algonquian?  How much passing back and
> forth might be reasonable?
>