Lakota chaNnuNpa

[REGINA PUSTET]

> echa-m-uN 'I do' is echuN, and echamiN 'I think" is echiN.

In Omaha-Ponca the latter is a'=zaN=miN 'I think', a'=z^a=z^iN 'you
think', vs. a'=z^=iN 'he thinks'. The a'=z^a= matches e=c^ha= well enough
to suggest *DEM=ya=.

  I'm really having trouble with the analysis of echiN 'to think'. 1SG is echaNmi, 2SG is echaNni. I can't see any regularity in there, even if we say that there is a small class of verbs that (in an internally regular way) prefix or infix m- for 1SG and n- for 2SG. For echuN 'to do', we said in previous email that the original (Siouan) root is uN 'to do', which must have formed a compound with echa-, which could be the adverb 'like that', at least from my completely synchronic perspective. Under these assumptions, the inflection of echuN (1SG echamuN, 2SG echanuN) conforms with the reqúirements for regularity within the m/n-paradigm. But what about echiN 'to do'? is there a basic historical form iN 'to think' or something like that? Is the echaN- that we see in the 1SG and 2SG of echiN related to the echa- in 1SG and 2SG of echuN? The Omaha-Ponca data now seem to suggest that the case is a lot more complicated. 
   
  And anyway, I still claim that the reader of a Lakota grammar that posits a 'regular' m/n-class togther with all the phonological rules needed to derive the actual inflectional forms will end up more confused than someone who is simply confronted with a list of verbs that do not inflect in a carefree way. 'Carefree inflection' in Lakota is what we see in verbs that have wa- 1SG and ya- 2SG. Even if there are rules which ultimately make it possible to motivate the verb forms with m/n, this class, in terms of regularity, is a far cry from the wa/ya-class, which is truly regular. Do we do the readers of a grammar a favor if we overstuff it with rules? Such rules may be very real at the diachronic level, and are definitely interesting to discuss, but to what extent should a grammar be burdened with these things?
   
  Regina
   
   
  

Koontz John E <John.Koontz at colorado.edu> wrote:
  On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, ROOD DAVID S wrote:
> echa-m-uN 'I do' is echuN, and echamiN 'I think" is echiN.

In Omaha-Ponca the latter is a'=zaN=miN 'I think', a'=z^a=z^iN 'you
think', vs. a'=z^=iN 'he thinks'. The a'=z^a= matches e=c^ha= well enough
to suggest *DEM=ya=.

> It doesn't happen in iyuNga/imuNge because of the /y/.

I think this is *i=(r)uNge, with intrusive *r > y in the third person,
right? It's like (same structure, not same gloss) OP i'maNghe 'I ask him
about it', i'z^aNghe 'you ask him about it' vs. i'dhaNghe 'he asks him
about it'. It's neat when little details match across fairly different
languages!

Not surprizingly, Osage likes ipraNghe for the first person of 'ask one
about' (per LaFlesche, anyway). This illustrates the route by which
Dakotan likely gets the n's in the second person of this paradigm.



 		
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20060626/8705b12f/attachment.htm>