"WOUND"

[goodtracks at peoplepc.com]

Yes, John,
indeed I was looking for what may be an appropriate entry to be included in 
my revised IOM dictionary.  And as you suggest below, an anology may be the 
best possible, in the light of little solid evidence from the related 
languages.  So I have received an answer from the unforeseen in-depth 
discussion that I could not have imagine being generated by one small term 
that has only been rendered in the 3PP texts of a handfull of IOM 
statements.
Thanks again, to Bob and everyone contribution, and excuse me for tying up 
the List for so long.
Jimm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Koontz John E" <John.Koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: "WOUND"


> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Rankin, Robert L wrote:
>> Our question about this verb had to do with the conservative pronominal
>> prefixes that commonly occur with stems beginning with */?/.  ...
>> Languages that have reflexes of regular *wa+?uN, *ra+?uN are not
>> germaine to the discussion.
>
> Well, not germane to that aspect of the discussion, but I think Jimm's
> primary concern is actually just what the inflection of the verb o(o)
> 'wound' was in IO, in the absence of attestation, and in that case the
> patterns in IO for uN(uN) are relevant, as are, perhaps, the ones in
> Winnebago. I think Jimm knows that this verb is one of the awkward ones,
> though, and he's looking for anything to shed light on the problem.
>
> I think it's likely that the verb was A1 *ha?oo, A2 *ra?oo, A3 oo, maybe
> A12 *hiN?oo, and that at some point before that (maybe most recently in
> proto-Chiwere-Winnebago) it must have been something like A1 *ha?oo, A2
> s^?oo or *s^oo, A3 *oo, A12 *hiN?oo, to judge from the attested Winnebago
> forms.  For that matter, I could imagine more complex possibilities like a
> second person *ras^?oo.  The actual forms must have varied across time,
> and, given the number of different groups speaking IO c. 1800, they may
> well have been different in space, too.  But for Jimm I think the question
> is less one of the reconstructive possibilities at given points, than a
> philological problem of what he is justified in putting in his dictionary
> and and an applied one of what he could suggest that would be speakers
> use.
>
> Philologically he can't put anything, I think, except A1 unknown, etc.
> But in an applied sense he might want to recommend something by analogy
> with uN or the regular paradigm, and I think the two are close enough to
> suggest a working answer.  However the applied use reader would want to
> know that in this case the form is a guess, and, of course, a historical
> linguist would very much want to know what was attested and what was
> guesswork.
>