Titles, Mark 7

[REGINA PUSTET]

Thanks much, Bob -- this will be absorbed into the paper soon.
   
  > (a) how noNpa 'two' has developed into a comitative marker; what I'd need is a complete clause that shows the syntactic structures involved. A numeral as the source of an adposition is quite sensational to document since this represents a very infrequent grammaticalization channel for adpositions.

There may be some Muskogean influence here. Choctaw has a construction that, although basically a DUAL is often translated with a comitative. They use the expression /itta-toklo/, approximately 'the two (of us) together' with verbs to signal dual participants. Toklo is 'two'.

  Is this pattern common in Muskogean? If it isn't, it is possible that Siouan or at least Biloxi has influenced Choctaw in this respect.
   
  There is a pan-Siouan verb /i-?uN/ transparently meaning 'to do with' (?uN 'do', i- 'with', right?) Among Siouan languages Dakota is the only one, as far as I know, that has dropped the instrumentive prefix i- but kept the meaning 'use' ( = do with). 
   
  Does the apparently basic 'do' meaning of uN surface in Lakota echuN 'to do'? The etymology might then be echa 'thus, like that, such' plus uN 'to do', and we'd be in a good position to account for the irregular first and second person of echuN (echamuN, echanuN), which correspond nicely with the equally irregular and extremely rare first and second person pattern for uN 'to use' (muN, nuN).
   
  Regina
   
  
"Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:
  May I add one or two comments too?

> (a) how noNpa 'two' has developed into a comitative marker; what I'd need is a complete clause that shows the syntactic structures involved. A numeral as the source of an adposition is quite sensational to document since this represents a very infrequent grammaticalization channel for adpositions.

There may be some Muskogean influence here. Choctaw has a construction that, although basically a DUAL is often translated with a comitative. They use the expression /itta-toklo/, approximately 'the two (of us) together' with verbs to signal dual participants. Toklo is 'two'. At the moment I can't be more specific than that. Pam probably has a better handle on this than I do. All my Muskog. reference materials are in boxes in my garage at the moment.

(b) how oN(ha) developed into an instrumental marker. The very same process is indeed going on with Lakota uN 'to use'. again, I'd appreciate clauses showing the usage of the marker. Do you have any idea what the -ha is doing here?

There is a pan-Siouan verb /i-?uN/ transparently meaning 'to do with' (?uN 'do', i- 'with', right?) Among Siouan languages Dakota is the only one, as far as I know, that has dropped the instrumentive prefix i- but kept the meaning 'use' ( = do with). That's all I can add, but it's at least suggestive of a trajectory for the grammaticalization.

(c) if saNhiN is a noun -- this is what your translation seems to imply. Could this element function as an adverb as well? And again, if you happen to have examples of the usage of saNhiN that illustrate its development into a case marker, that would be great.

Reminds me of the uses of Turkish /taraf/ 'side', borrowed from Arabic.

Bob


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060613/3a4231e8/attachment.htm>