Is this a Lakota sentence?

[jurga at ou.edu]

I showed the same sentence to another speaker, and he translated it as "Younger brother, there are good things around the world." It seems that "we make" or "there are" are the parts that the speakers fill in depending on their own understanding of the sentence. I thought it might be interesting from the point of view of the "cultural" part of the language, which might be hidden in the context (which is interesting to me as a cultural/linguistic anthropologist). I will let you know if I hear of any other variants.
Jurga Saltanaviciute
P.S. I am currently at the Sicangu Oyate (or Rosebud Sioux Reservation); translations were done in person.

----- Original Message -----
From: cantemaza <mckay020 at umn.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2005 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: Is this a Lakota sentence?

> Just out of curiosity, who was it agin that asked Albert WhiteHat 
> how to 
> tranlsate this?  Was it done orally or in written form like an e-
> mail or 
> something? 
> I'm asking because I do not see the "we" in the "we make things 
> good."   
> This would be unhduwaste (Damakota do!) for we/you and I and not 
> ohduwaste which does by itself have the meaning of changing 
> something 
> into the positive or haviong a positive effect on 
> something/someone or 
> making something good.  If someone were to ask me (and they 
> haven't plus 
> I am very young)  to translate "Younger brother, we make the world 
> better" I would say
> 
> "Misun, maka sitomniya unhduwaste ye/do."
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Hehanyedan epe kte do.
> 
> -Cantemaza de miye do!
> 
> Koontz John E wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 jurga at ou.edu wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I just asked Mr. White Hat for help with this sentence, and his
> >>translation was:
> >>
> >>Younger  brother, we make things good around the world,
> >>
> >>or,
> >>
> >>Younger brother, we make the world better.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Orignal:
> >
> >(correcting to yelo from yalo)
> >
> >"Misun,    oglu    waste   maka   sitomni    yelo!"
> >[misuN'    oglu'   was^te' makxa' sito'mni   yelo']
> > y-bro VOC fortune good    world  all around DECLm
> >
> >Alfred Tueting comments:
> >  
> >
> >>With all due respect for Mr. W-H's competence, this translation 
> seems to
> >>be in need of linguistical elucidation, doesn't it?.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I was a little surprised at this comment at first reading.  I 
> don't think
> >Mr. White Hat's linguistic (speech) competence has ever been 
> faulted by
> >anyone I know, though some have grumbled about his linguistic 
> (technical)>practice (in orthography, as I recall), if folks will 
> forgive me using the
> >word linguistic in two different senses in one sentence.  I think,
> >however, that Alfred meant only that the rendition above needed
> >"linguistic elucidation," to explain how such a variant 
> translation had
> >come about.
> >
> >As far as elucidating the original, I think he and Bruce have 
> essentially>already done that.  I'm still not clear if the 
> sentence is idiomatic,
> >though idiomaticity must be a variable and moving target in a 
> language as
> >widely distributed and lively as Lakota.  Maybe some places oglu 
> was^te is
> >the usual expression for 'fortun(ate)'?
> >
> >I suspect this alternative approach to rendering the sentence 
> results from
> >trying to make sense of the unusual aspects of the original sentence
> >already noted, i.e., the unusual word for oglu for '(good) 
> fortune' and
> >writing yelo as yalo under the influence of English spelling.  
> This last
> >glitch, in particular, adds a causative or verb of motion, if 
> taken at
> >face value, and I think that leads to the causative in Mr. White 
> Hat's>English rendition.  But, if it's a causative, what is 
> causativized?  In
> >what person is the resulting construction to be construed and,
> >pragmatically, translated?  In essence, I think Mr. White Hat is 
> trying to
> >be faithful "to the letter" of a fairly obscure text.
> >
> >So, to adapt an old computer science maxim and raise it to the 
> level of a
> >scientific principle, my explanation of the difference is 
> "Garbled in,
> >garbled out."
> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>