Lakota chaNnuNpa

[REGINA PUSTET]

This m-/n-class is getting more and more exciting. I'm wondering how this pattern arose and if it is old or more recent. Do other Siouan languages have similar patterns? I think I heard that there is a connection with the stative paradigm ma-/ni-. How robust is this hypothesis? Once we know more about the history of the class, we might know more about its degree of (ir)regularity.
   
  Regina
  

ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
  
Buechel suggests that chaNnuNpa derives from chaNli 'tobacco' plus uNpa
'to smoke'. Many speakers change "l" to "n" after a nasal vowel when the
consonant closes the syllable (e.g. akaNl is often pronounced akaNn), so
the development chaNli > chaNl > chaNn is probably regular, and the
etymology would be chaNli-uNpa.

Regina makes that point that there is vowel deletion in the third person
forms of these verbs if the underlying sequence includes VV; chaNnu-m-uNpa
in the first person is chaNn-uNpa in the third, echa-m-uN 'I do' is echuN,
and echamiN 'I think" is echiN. It doesn't happen in iyuNga/imuNge
because of the /y/. Again, for my taste, this process is completely
regular as an application of the phonological rules of the language: there
are no VV sequences anywhere; either a vowel is deleted or a glide is
inserted to prevent them. So there is no need for a "special" statement
about irregularities -- the problem is not with the conjugation, but with
permitted phonological sequences. The sequence echa-uN is doing exactly
what it is supposed to do.

Now back to 'smoke'. If the synchronic stem is chaNn-uNpa, first person
should be *chaNn-m-uNpa. Here, then, we have a genuine irregularity in
development; an extra /u/ has appeared from somewhere (the ever-powerful
tool of the diachronist, "analogy", comes to mind), and this word does
seem to be "irregular" in that its behavior is not predicted by rules
otherwise needed in the language.

So I return to my original objection to the overuse of the notion
"irregular". All of the behavior of these verbs except the extra -u- in
'smoke' can be stated by rules that apply wherever the environment is
right. That makes them rule-governed, even if they are few in number
(recall that "irregular" means "not rule-governed"). I think the REAL
irregularity is the occasional use of -mn- instead of -m- for the first
person of some -yVN- stems.

>>From a pedagogical point of view, you may want to relax the definition of
"regular" and make it mean "most common", but I don't think that's good
descriptive linguistic practice.

David

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, REGINA PUSTET 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" 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



 __________________________________________________
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/20060614/5108d123/attachment.htm>