Lakota chaNnuNpa

[REGINA PUSTET]

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.

  Hard to tell. My instinctive feeling is that uNpa 'to smoke' is the basic form, and chaNnuNpa 'to smoke' is derived. This is supported precisely by the 'irregular' m/n-inflection (yes, I'm using the term again) of thís verb which should be ancient because irregular paradigms, in general, are older than regular ones.
   
  I don't really believe in the chaN 'wood' plus nuNpa 'two' etymology because what we're dealing with here materially -- which was probaly the same in precontact times -- is a piece of wood and a piece of rock, rather than two pieces of wood. But who knows about the smoking habits in the Americas before recorded history. Or about the exact meaning of the historical precursor of chaN. But I wouldn't deny that chaN 'wood' might be involved here. Etymologically, my analysis would add up to chaN 'wood' plus uNpa 'to smoke', and I have to admit that I don't know either how to account for the missing n.
   
  Regina
  

"Alfred W. Tüting" <ti at fa-kuan.muc.de> wrote:
  >> 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








 __________________________________________________
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/20060614/f6705801/attachment.htm>