Dakota ki(N)haN, k?uN, etc.

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> Well, dem-det before the noun is absolutely impossible in Lakota, which is
> the only one of these languages I know even a little about.  But then,
> the order we have is always det-dem anyway.  The evolution of the Dhegiha
> articles must be quite different from that of the Lakhota ones.

Harking back to Bruce's recent comments I wonder if kiNhaN might fit in
some way into the pattern of kiN (ki in Lakota) vs. k?uN.  Bob usually
explains k?uN as involving something like kiN + uN Perfect-Aux or *ruN
PAST, I think.  Could kihaN be a continuative variant?  Is there a
ki(N)he?  I've noticed that reflexives of *rhe tend to alternate with
*rhaN in each language, cf. OP =the 'the upright inanimate' vs. thaN 'the
standing animate obviative'.  I think there's a j^e ~ j^aN pair in
Winnebago, too.

I sometimes wonder if certain Dhegiha forms with *-ki might not have a
petrified reflex of *kiN 'definite'.  The most common examples are forms
comparable to Omaha-Ponca wakkaNdagi 'watermonster' vs. wakkaNda 'God',
but I have seen at least one more, I think.  A slight complication is that
I'm not sure whether either wakkaNda itself or wakkaNdagi (or both) are
most plausible in OP (and Dhegiha generally) as inherited forms or as
borrowings.  Probably all the Dhegiha forms have to be considered as a
set.  In any event, this is an irregular, ill-explained area of Dhegiha
morphology, and an area in which loans might be expected.  I don't
remember at the moment if (?) wakkaN per se is attested.  The usual
equivalent of Dakotan wakhaN (which would be a good cognate of OP (?)
wakkaN) is xube.