Lakota chaNnuNpa and irregularity.

[ROOD DAVID S]

>  As for "irregular" verbs, I think I'd stick to calling all of the stems
> that use consonantal actor pronominal prefixes 'irregular'.  In most
> instances they all contrast with regular pronominals used in the same
> environment.  In Dakotan there is:
>  wa-?uN contrasting with m-uN (same root but different verbs).

	Not the same root.  the 1st plural of wa?uN is unk'uNpi, while
that of mun is unkunpi.  the glottal stop is real.




>  Similarly, Dakotan Y-stems typically take /b-/ in the 1st person, but a
> few, notably causative, require /wa-/ and thus contrast.  The fact that
> the /y/ of causative was epenthetic is unfortunately not recoverable by
> speakers.

	"not recoverable" is a matter of definition.  The fact that they
all treat the two cases as different means that they know in some sense
that they aren't the same environment.  I think the ONLY exception to the
b- rule is the causative, though I haven't actually inventoried
everything.


>
> H-stems sometimes take /wa-/ and sometimes /p-/ in the 1st person.
>  Generally speaking, the consonantal pronominals (syncopating stems) are
> so ancient that virtually all of them have become semi-productive and
> thus "irregular" in the ordinary sense.  It's only possible to say that
> they "used to be" completely phonologically conditioned.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: Wed 6/14/2006 12:16 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: RE: Lakota chaNnuNpa
>
>
>
>
> 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" <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 <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>
>
>
>