Titles, Mark 7

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

 >> I don't understand.'I smoke' is, as far as I remember, chanumuNpa, 
chanu - m -uNpa; how is that reduplicated? The second person
looks reduplicated (chanu-nuNpa), but I think that's just the "n" 
pronoun appearing where it's supposed to go. <<<<


 > The third person of ‘to smoke’ is chaNnuNpa. If the verb were a 
regular m-/n-verb, the third person would have to be chaNnu’uNpa to get 
first and second person chaNnumuNpa and chaNnunuNpa. We could actually 
posit chaNnu’uNpa as basic root and analyze the third person as a 
contracted form, but still, we need that contraction rule which moves 
this verb a little farther away from being a ‘regular’ m-/n-verb. The 
transitive version uNpa ‘to smoke (a pipe etc.)’ has first person muNpa, 
second person nuNpa and is therefore a ‘regular’ m/n-verb. <<


I wonder if this - a bit weird - construction is due to the fact(?) that 
it is a verbalization derived from the noun _chaNnu(n)pa_ - pipe/calumet 
which literally has nothing to do with 'to smoke' rather than being a 
compound meaning 'two-woods' (chaN-nuNpa), i.e. 'bowl and stem'. Or - as 
though pretty obvious and convincing - would you call this 'folk etymology'?
If so, and there actually is an (original!) verb for 'to smoke' _uN'pa_ 
(-> uNmuN'pa, uNnuN'pa, uNkuN'papi), what then is the meaning of _chaN-_ 
forming another existing verb for 'to smoke'? Why then (and for what 
reason at all) this compound(?) verb has an additional -n- inserted 
(chaNnuNpa - to smoke/s/he smokes)?? Consequently forming chaNnuNmuNpa, 
chaNnuNnuNpa etc.). I'm quite hesitant assuming that _uNpa_ was first in 
the sense of egg and hen.
I'd easily imagine that in this case the verb (to smoke) might have 
derived from the noun chaNnupa. Cf. German Pfeife - pfeifen (pipe - 'to 
pipe' = to wistle).

I'd be interested in your knowledgeable opinions.


Alfred