another Siouan question

[Bryan Gordon]

You are quite possibly in the right about this. /kh/ versus /kk/ is
probably the hardest distinction to hear, just for acoustic reasons
(the chamber behind the closure being smaller than with any other
distinction.

My only recordings are from Roland Noear, and since he's hard of
hearing he doesn't keep /kh/ and /kk/ very distinct either, so I
wouldn't trust those recordings.

The question goes to folks working with speakers in Nebraska, I would guess!

- BJG

2007/12/17, Rankin, Robert L <rankin at ku.edu>:
> Bryan,
>
> Are you certain there is a /khi-/ prefix with a reflexive or reciprocal, etc. meaning in Omaha?  I suspect Dorsey's transcription here.  Kansa and Quapaw have kki- 'reflexive' and kkikki- 'recip.', both with /kk/, never /kh/.  The only place I get /kh/ is with the syncopated form of the dative causative, k+hiye > /khiye/, but the k-h here is bimorphemic, not a unitary prefix.  I defer to the folks who speak or are studying Omaha and Ponca on this, but I seriously suspect JOD's ear here.
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Bryan Gordon
> Sent: Mon 12/17/2007 5:51 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: another Siouan question
>
>
>
> Bruce -
>
> I don't know the etymology of most of these prefixes, but Omaha and
> Ponca have an interesting choice between two reciprocals as well, and
> they seem to be able to treat patients rather than agents, or a
> general sense of "together", in the same way as ichi-.
>
> kki and k?i are the two prefixes. Dorsey had a hard time
> distinguishing between these sometimes, so it's not always clear that
> it's a correct transcription, but there do seem to be some
> regularities. Usually k?i is taken to be the "real" reciprocal, and we
> analyse kki as a reflexive that just happens to have a reciprocal
> function sometimes.
>
> Reciprocal kki doesn't seem to be any more restricted in its use than
> k?i, at least in Dorsey. I don't know what the situation is for modern
> speakers.
>
> Here are some examples of the patient-oriented reciprocal from Dorsey:
> Íkkippehí?hi?xti - just like pillows on top of each other (403.8)
> from í?behi? (pillow)
> íkkippahá?zhiwáthe - caused them to be unable to recognise each other (624.10)
> from íbaha? (know)
> wánda? ík?ik?a?t?á?bi-amá - tied them together with it (150.17)
> from k?a?t?a? (tie)
> Ank?ík?ibaná? - we run a race together (165.12)
> from k?ibana? (race)
> ék?ithe - related to one another (84.13)
> from ethe (related)
> ék?igtha?bi-amá - came together again (two split pieces of ground) (291.10)
> from égtha? (put something on something)
> K?igthádabi-amá. - they crawled up on him together (360.5)
> from gthade (crawl up on someone)
> ak?ígthi? - sat together on it (421.3)
> from agthi? (sit on something)
> ák?ithétte - crossed it (the creek) together (422.7)
> from áthitte (cross), áthitta (across)
> ak?ízha?i - lay together (433.1)
> from azha? (lie on something)
> zhá?kki?á?he - situated lying together (627.3)
> from zha??a?he (put oneself on top of someone, or put a body somewhere)
> uk?ík?ie - talk together (very frequent word)
> from uk?ie (talk with someone)
>
> I think ank?ík?ibaná? provides evidence that the reciprocal can
> actually be an additional proposition rather than an integrated
> component of the main proposition - the verb has no patients, only
> agents, and yet the way that they are reciprocal is patient-oriented,
> because it more or less means "we race AND we are together when we do
> it".
>
> I wonder if anyone has found usage differences between k?i and kki.
>
> - Bryan James Gordon
>
>
>
>