PS *waNtho' 'grizzly'

[David Costa]

In that connection, it's worth pointing out that the relevant phoneme does
*not* appear as a voiceless lateral in any Algonquian language. That's one
argument for reconstructing it as theta.

Dave

> 
> And of course the similar phoneme in Muskogean varies in pronunciation between
> voiceless L and theta in at least Choctaw and Creek (probably the rest too).
> Some, as you would expect, are convinced that the latter pronunciation is
> English influence, but I don't think there's any real proof of that.  Early
> writers often wrote "thl".
> 
> Bob
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Costa
> Sent: Wed 3/7/2007 10:57 AM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: PS *waNtho' 'grizzly'
> 
>  
>> I recently had occasion to notice again Proto-Algonquian *ma0kw-a 'bear' +
>> ANIMATE, in which 0 = theta, initially an abstract symbol for an unknown
>> cluster initial leading to preaspirates some places and fricatives others.
> 
> Right. But PA */0k/ is just one of seven different k-clusters that have been
> securely reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian. Many of these clusters most
> typically appear as /hk/, /$k/ or /sk/ in various daughter languages.
> 
>> I think it is sometimes suggested it might be a voiceless l.
> 
> Sometimes. There are prominent Algonquianists who argue it's voiceless /l/,
> and others who argue it really was theta. It's still theta in Arapaho (when
> not in clusters).
> 
>> Under this are collated (per Aubin)
>> 
>> Fox      mahkwa
>> Cree     maskwa
>> Odawa    mko, mkwa (these from Rhodes)
>> Shawnee  mkwa
>> 
>> etc., including Arapaho and Eastern Algonquian reflexes.
> 
> More for the collection:
> 
> Miami mahkwa
> Ojibwe makwa
> Munsee Delaware maxkw
> Massachusett mashq
> Arapaho wóx
> 
>> My main source Aubin also lists Proto-Algonquian maxkw-a, which I take it
>> means that there are some awkward reflexes around for 0k, though these are
>> not
>> indicated.
> 
> No, it's not PA */maxkwa/, it really is */ma0kwa/. Proto-Algonquian 'bear'
> reconstructs pretty cleanly.
> 
>> Aubin also offers *naapee0kw-a 'male bear', in which I think *naapee- is
>> 'male',
> 
> Right.
> 
>> and a medial *a0kw-a 'bear', underlying these two forms.
> 
> No, in this case, it's a final, and it's just *-a0kw-. The /a/ is not part
> of the final, it's just a gender marker.
> 
>> I believe that from the Algonquian perspective m- is essentially an initial
>> for making medials into forms capable of standing alone.
> 
> Other way around. Many Algonquian nouns with initial */w/ or */m/ can form
> final or medial allomorphs by dropping the */w/ or */m/. Weirdly however,
> this doesn't work for most other initial consonants. Either way, no
> Algonquianist would say you can segment off the /m-/ from the front of
> */ma0kwa/.
> 
>> I have taken the liberty here of segmenting -a, which I hope is correct.
> 
> Right, it's just the animate singular marker.
> 
>> What I've noticed is a degree of parallelism with the 'bow' term.  This is
>> in the nature of exploring a hypothesis.  I am not yet ready to insist
>> that PA *m-a0kw- is the source of PS *waNtho'.  It's just that there are
>> some similarities, and both forms appear to be somewhat vexed.
> 
> It is an intriguing similarity, but the absence of a /k/ in any of the
> Siouan 'bear' words is not something I'd expect if this was an Algonquian
> loan. At least the Winnebago 'bow' word preserves a direct reflex of a /k/,
> if I'm reading your tables right. Of course, I can't speak to the Siouan
> forms beyond that.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
>