Lakota chaNnuNpa

[Rankin, Robert L]

It's a lovely story and an excellent example of folk etymology, but other Siouan languages in which 'tobacco' and 'wood' are not similar words make it clear that 'pipe' is a compound of 'tobacco' with 'smoke' (or 'smoke in' if the extra vowel is a locative prefix on 'smoke').
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Jonathan Holmes
Sent: Wed 6/14/2006 12:31 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: Lakota chaNnuNpa


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 âEUR~to smokeâEUR(tm) is chaNnuNpa. If the verb were a 
		regular m-/n-verb, the third person would have to be chaNnuâEUR(tm)uNpa to get 
		first and second person chaNnumuNpa and chaNnunuNpa. We could actually 
		posit chaNnuâEUR(tm)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 âEUR~regularâEUR(tm) m-/n-verb. The 
		transitive version uNpa âEUR~to smoke (a pipe etc.)âEUR(tm) has first person muNpa, 
		second person nuNpa and is therefore a âEUR~regularâEUR(tm) 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 <http://friendsofpineridgereservation.org/> 
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com