How great you are/"Porosity" of Lakh. Parts of Speech?

Thu Jun 29 05:21:47 UTC 2006

Hau Alfred chiye, Nice work! ( and with Net-Siouan transcription  
also!). You beat me to the "punch" there, gut gemacht lieber  
Freund! :-)  Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder whether or not it  
is on record, who composed this Lakhota version? : A non-Lakota (a  
cleric/missionary of some description, [ perhaps?]), or some  
anonymous native-speaking "convert"? I always like to know a text's  
provenance, if at all possible - but perhaps that is expecting a bit  
much in this  
case!                                                                    

                      Initially, it occurred to me that the third  
line of the first stanza might be a subordinate adverbial (temporal)  
clause, with the postposition "el" in its "conjunctional" use as a  
subordinator, with a nominalized clause preceeding. [See Buechel Gr.  
(p.250, #148, 2); Ingham, 12.2.2.1.]  This would then make lines 2 &  
3 into two temporal clauses "in tandem" (as it were), both  
subordinate to the principal clause of the 4th line : ("WHEN/WHENEVER  
["chan" perhaps being a truncated form of "channa".] I SEE THE STARS  
AND WHEN THE THUNDERBEINGS CRY OUT(AT the crying out of the Thunder  
Birds), YOUR POWER IS MADE MANIFEST." But then one notes that in this  
usage, "el" seems usually to follow the verb of said Nominalized Sub.  
Cl. immediately, or else be itself immediately preceeded by a  
nominalizing "kin/k'un"(which may also be omitted, Fr. Eugene tells  
us)==>"k'el". But, so far, I've been unable to locate any instances  
of this type of clause, in which other elements (as : Demonstative  
"lena" here, and Conjunction "kho") are permitted to intervene. I  
would suppose these "extras" may militate against the possibility of  
"hontonpi" being a Verb (to be translated "dynamically", as above),  
rather than a typically De-verbal Noun followed by Postposition as  
you have rendered it? On balance I suspect your simple prepositional  
phrasal translation of line 3, (Stanza 1) is probably better.  As you  
know, I am much exercised by the problem of the classification/ 
definition of Parts of Speech in Lakhota. The fluidity and  
"porosity" (so to say) of Lakhota word-categories absolutely  
intrigues me! I am striving, (somewhat unsuccessfully maybe), to undo  
the effect of years of familiarity/training with the relatively  
"black & white" categorizing of "THE Parts of Speech" deriving from  
Ancient Greek & Latin  paradigms of  grammatical & syntactic  
analysis : Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Adverb, Conjunction, Verb,  
participle, Infinitive, Particle; Principle Clause, Subordinate Cl.,  
etc., etc.) But at least one CAN now clearly see the limits of its  
utility in analysing Native American languages. Just to give an  
obvious illustrative example : the word "wowapi" seems to be, when  
the context & syntax require, [or perhaps even SIMULTANEOUSLY?] : 1)   
VERB,(on most literal level). Finite,Indef. Object., 3rdp. Pl. [=they  
write/wrote (things)] ; 2) NOUN : [=book/writing/letter/email/etc.];  
3) (equivalent of) PAST PARTICIPLE PASSIVE : "they write stuff==>it  
is WRITTEN". One supposes that 2) is just a nominalized off-shoot of  
3). For a classicist, this "Porosity" of Word Classes, a inherent  
"layering" in the grammatical structure, was quite mind-blowing at  
one's first encounter, and very salutary for one's mental agility!   
Similarly, with the problem of Subordination Vs Coordination, (or  
Hypotaxis Vs Parataxis as it was termed in studies of Greek Prose  
Styles).                                                                 

                                                                 I  
would like to say that I have found Bruce Ingham's admirably succinct  
treatment of these matters in Section 8 of "Lakota"(2003), and in his  
IJAL Papers on Nominal & Verbal Status in L., and on the  
Demonstrative stems most illuminating! He un lila pilamayaye lo,  
Bruce :-)!  No doubt what I have written above is very old news to  
the expert Siouan scholars here, but to try to formulate a problem  
does help to clarifiy one's thoughts, at times. Bruce, I love those  
categories of Circumstantial Stems & T-Words, as you refer to them in  
Section 10. I must say that the first thing that sprang to mind, when  
I read of those T-Words like taku/tuwe/tona/toketu/tokel, etc., was  
that they strongly reminded me of a class of words in the Greek  
grammar, [Correlative Pronouns : See "Greek Grammar" by H.W. Smythe,  
HUP,(1920) 1972, p.98. Sect.340.)] in which the same word, (e.g.  
"tis") may be, (according to syntactical context), Interrogative  
Pronoun/Adjective - always Accented, usu. Clause-Initial (=, in this  
case,"WHO?WHAT (noun)?"); Indefinite Pronoun (Enclitic) (="SOMEBODY/ 
ANYBODY") - coincidentally, also a "T-word" in A.Greek! However, I  
realize that analogical parallels between completely unrelated  
languages on different continents are of limited usefulness, and must  
not be pressed too far, but that knowledge helped me, I fancy, to  
better grasp your "deconstruction" of the concepts involved. Ake  
wopila! I would not wish to infringe protocol here again, but it was  
a great thrill for me to receive your friendly email in flawlessly  
elegant Lakotaiyapi! I understood every word. Best wishes & "Bon  
Voyage" to your daughter & grandchild! Byron Bay in Northern N.S.W.  
is a splendid place to live! I wonder if we might continue such an  
(occasional) correspondence in Lakota, off the  
list?                                                                    
                                                      Alfred, chiye,  
the only other detail in your faithful rendering I wanted to query,  
is in Second Stanza, line 3 : Wouldn't "Wanikhiya Mithawa kin" be  
just a Vocative? [="My Saviour, you died!"]; and "You died for me/ 
mine" be : "mayakichit"e"==> Truncated, or "Short Form" (Buech.Gr,p. 
45, #41)==> "miyecit"e"< Second Dative Verb : kit'A [=die for]?   
Toksha akhe, mitakuyepi, Clive.
On 28/06/2006, at 4:25 PM, Alfred W. Tüting wrote:

>
>>   How Great You Are (In Sioux)
>
> Wa-kan-tan-ka, Mako-che Ki Le Lu-ha
> Wi-cah-pi Lena Ko Wan Bla-ka Chan
> Wa-ki-yan Hon Ton Pi Kin Le-na Ko El
> Wo-wa-sha-ke Ni-ta-wa Kin Ta-nin
>
> Mi-na-gi Kin He-ya A Lo-o-wan
> Wa-ni-ki-ya, Wa-kan-tan-ka
> Wa-ni-ki-ya, Mi-Ta-wa Kin Ni-te
> I-ni-tan-can, I-ni-tan-can <<
>
>
> My rough translation:
>
>
> G-d, you possess (hold) this land/country (in your hands)
> And when(?) I see the stars,
> in the thunders
> your power/strength manifests.
>
> My spirit sings in praise (of you) saying:
> Saviour, G-d
> Saviour, (for) mine you-died
> you're (the) L-rd, you're (the) L-rd
>
>
> wakxaN-txaNka, makxoche kiN le luha
> wichah^pi lena kxo waNblake chaN
> wakiyaNhotxuNpi kiN lena kxo el
> wowas^ake nitxawa kiN tan?iN
>
> minag^i kiN heya alowaN
> wanikiya, wakxaN-txaNka
> wanikiya, mitxawa kiN nit?e
> initxaNchaN, initxaNchaN
>
>
> Alfred
>
>
>