Funny W

[Rory M Larson]

>> If we don't reconstruct *m, *n in Proto-Siouan, how about a
reconstruction of *W = *pw, *R = *tr ?  Would this slot be open?

I think I should have asked this a little differently: *W < *pw, *R < *tr ?
Or even *W < *wVw, *R < *rVr ?  I.e., derived from, not necessarily equal
to.

> "Slots" or "pigeon holes" would need to be open, of course, but there is
a bigger problem.  The reconstructions have to be made to jibe with what we
know of the morphology.  And there just aren't any prefixes that undergo
syncope with the shape *pV or *tV.  [...]

This morphemic argument is intriguing, but I need to level set a little to
follow it.  My understanding is that we have many cases of *R that arose
within branches of Siouan from clusters like stop + *r.  *W is less common,
and some cases of both *R and *W apparently go back to proto-Siouan.  I
thought these were the cases referred to as "unexplained".

If this is all correct, then I had meant the question only for the ones
apparently going back to proto-Siouan or before.  Do we know enough about
pre-proto-Siouan phonology and morphology to limit what clusters could have
existed in proto-Siouan or its near ancestors?  If so, how?  And are we
assuming that all consonant clusters in proto-Siouan must be the result of
syncope of a morphemic prefix?

Rory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20061114/37e6d08b/attachment.htm>