Lakota chaNnuNpa

[ROOD DAVID S]

Jonathan, thanks very much for that report -- it's the usual explanation
everyone gives for both the noun and the verb.  However, I think that
what you report here is what linguists generally refer to as a
"folk etymology".  People try to explain their language to themselves, and
take the most transparent possible analysis (indeed, chaN means 'wood' and
nuNpa means 'two') and try to tell a story that justifies it.  (To provide
an English example, in some parts of the US, "asparagus" has been
re-formed into "spear grass" because of how it looks.)  When this happens,
people often forget about grammar completely and rely only on meaning.  In
the case of chaN nuNpa, to make that explanation work, "chaN" would have
to be a countable noun.  It can be, in Lakota, but then its English
equivalent has to be something like 'sticks'.  Moreover, if you think
about the process of making those pipes, and think about how you might
invent names for the product, I doubt that "two woods" would pop into your
mind as a descriptive term for either the process or the product -- you'd
want a name that had something more specific to do with the object.

	However, you've given me an idea for the source of the extra "u",
though it's not perfect, either.  Perhaps the /u/ is from "uN" 'with; by
means of; using' (the word that got us started on this whole discussion,
the postposition derived from the verb uN).  Chanli un uNpa 'one smokes
tobacco with it' might possibly erode to chaNn-u-uNpa.  I'm bothered by
the loss of the nasalization on "uN" if this is indeed the story.  Note
that the grammar is NOT a problem here; Lakota postpositions are often
separated from their objects and pre-posed to the verb, so here the
immediate constituency is not "with tobacco" "one smokes" but rather
"tobacco" "one smokes it with it".

Best,
	David



On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Jonathan Holmes wrote:

> The Lakota term used for a prayer pipe is cannu'npa.
>
> It is my understanding from Lakota friends that this is literally
> translated as "two wood," ( can meaning "wood," and nunpa meaning
> "two").
>
> The literal name refers to the very early method of making a pipestem by
> splitting a tree branch lengthwise, hollowing out the center, and gluing
> it back together for a finished pipestem. This was done by very early
> Lakota peoples in making the long ceremonial pipestems, and the name has
> been carried on ever since, even though many smaller personal prayer
> pipes are now commonly made from a single piece of wood.
>
>   Hope this helps,
>   Jonathan
>
>
>
> REGINA PUSTET <pustetrm at yahoo.com> wrote:
>     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
>
>
>
> Be a friend...
> Help support the Lakota Communities on Pine Ridge,
> go to:   http://FriendsofPineRidgeReservation.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com