Aho!
Jimm G. GoodTracks
jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM
Wed Sep 4 20:13:36 UTC 2013
I know you have your mind set on "jump on ~ in" something, but how about some other sentences to see how it plays out. Mark's material below is interesting. Now I wonder how it plays out in Kaw, Osage? Is IOM unique in having a different order for: "he jumps on them (boys) ~ wát^anwe" [wa + a + t^ánwe] and "He jumped in (the middle of the people) ~ wót^amwe [wa + u + t^ánwe].
What says the Dhegiha folks? Does all the rest of the Dhegiha languages follow suit with the Omaha? Can Iren and Johannes state if the Hochank follow with the Jiwere? Or with the Dhegiha?
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 12:23 PM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: RE: Aho!
Yep, the term “wonayin” helps! For the life of me I couldn’t think of a definite locative that worked with “wa-“. Well, that “wa-“ has the idea of “something” and the one I’m talking about refers to “them.” However as you mentioned, “wa-“ is so complicated we don’t know if that is the same “wa-“ or not LOL.
I’ve been getting the “jump” information from Mark Awakuni-Swetland. He and I have been emailing back and forth for the past week or so. He’s graciously shared some of his digitized material with me. Here’s a pic of his entry:
As far as those books, I got the proofs last week. I still need to double-check them although I suspect there won’t be any issues if they just cut/pasted the information I sent them J.
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Campbell, Sky
Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD; Jill Greer; Mark J Awakuni-Swetland
Subject: Re: Aho!
See if the entries below [on; in~within] helps:
** in them; on them prn/prep.prf. wó-... in us; on us prn/prep.prf. wówa-...(wi). [NOTE: wa- + u- = wó-].
The shirt is too tight on them, Wónayin wóradage ke.
The shirt is too tight on us two, Wónayin wówaradage ke.
The shirt is too tight on all of us, Wónayin wówaradagewi ke.
God put the truth in them, Wakánda mínke wógre ke.
God put the truth in us two, Wakánda mínke wówagre ke.
God put the truth in all of us, Wakánda mínke wówagrewi ke.
There’s a bug on me,
Wagrí úngwe ke.
There’s several bugs on me,
Wagrí úngweñe ke.
There’s a bug on you and me,
Wagrí wówagwe ke.
There’s several bugs
on you and me,
Wagrí wówagwañe ke.
There’s a bug on you,
Wagrí urígwe ke.
There’s several bugs on you,
Wagrí urígwañe ke.
There’s a bug on her,
Wagrí ugwé ke.
There’s several bugs on her,
Wagrí ugwañe ke.
There’s a bugs on all of us,
Wagrí wówagwawi ke.
There’s several bugs on us all,
Wagrí wówagwanawi ke.
There’s a bug on all of you,
Wagrí urígwawi ke.
There’s several bugs
on all of you,
Wagrí urígwanawi ke.
There’s a bug on them,
Wagrí wógwe ke.
There’s several bugs on them all,
Wagrí wógwañe ke.
on; over; upon inseparable prep prf/suf. a-...; ...-da:
I jumped on it,
Áát^anwe ke [a- + há- + t^anwe].
He left me on it,.
Amínbe ke.
It goes from that point on,.
Gaída waré (ke).
The house is on the hill,
Chí ahéda aré ke.
There ice on the ground,
Maháda ñúxe ke.
The fleas are pecking
on the dogs,
Wagríiñe šunk^éñi wégwañe ke.
** on; on there v.t/prep. dáre. [NOTE: ída ~ da (there) + aré (it is)]:
Míne dáre ke, It was on me.
Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me.
Ríre dáre ke, It was on you.
Ríre dáreñe ke, They were on you.
Aré dáre ke, It was on him.
Aré dáreñe ke, They were on him ~ them.
Híné dáre ke, It was on you & me.
Híné dáreñe ke, They were on you & me.
Míne dáre ke, It was on me.
Míne dáreñe ke, They were on me.
** be on, on; sticks to adj/v.i. aráha. **SEE: adhere; stick;aráha.
There’s a bug on me,
Wagrí ánraha ke.
There’s one bug on us two,
Wagrí iyánki wáwaraha ke.
There’s a bug on you,
Wagrí aríraha ke.
There’s a bug on her,
Wagrí aráha ke.
There’s a bug on all of us,
Wagrí wáwarahawi ke.
There’s a bug on you all,
Wagrí arírahawi ke.
There’s a bug on them 2,
Wagrí aráhawi ke.
There’s a bug on all of them,
Wagrí aráhañe ke.
** be several in, within adj/v.i. ugwé. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre.
There’s a bug in me,
Wagrí úngwe ke.
There’s several bugs in me,
Wagrí úngweñe ke.
There’s a bug in you and me,
Wagrí wówagwe ke.
There’s several bugs
in you and me,
Wagrí wówagwañe ke.
There’s a bug in you,
Wagrí urígwe ke.
There’s several bugs in you,
Wagrí urígwañe ke.
There’s a bug in her,
Wagrí ugwé ke.
There’s several bugs in her,
Wagrí ugwañe ke.
There’s a bugs in all of us,
Wagrí wówagwawi ke.
There’s several bugs in us all,
Wagrí wówagwanawi ke.
There’s a bug in all of you,
Wagrí urígwawi ke.
There’s several bugs
in all of you,
Wagrí urígwanawi ke.
There’s a bug in them,
Wagrí wógwe ke.
There’s several bugs in them all,
Wagrí wógwañe ke.
** settle on (surface); be several on ~ around; be some ~ a number of; be numerous, many; pile up; be dense on prep/v.t. édo. **SEE: adhere; stick; ugwé; egwé; dáre.
There’s several bugs on me,
Wagrí ándo(ñe) ke.
There’s several bugs on us two,
Wagrí wéwedo ke.
There’s several bugs on you,
Wagrí arído ke.
There’s several bugs on her,
Wagrí edo ke.
There’s several bugs on us all,
Wagrí wéwedowi ke.
There’s several bugs all of you,
Wagrí arídowi ke.
There's several bugs on them 2,
Wagrí wédowi ke.
There's several bugs all of them,
Wagrí wédoñe ke.
** be exemely numerous on, around; be thick on; lots of on adj/v.i. aráš^òge. **SEE: adhere; stick; thick; ugwé; egwé; dáre.
There’s lots of bugs on me,
Wagrí ánraš^ògeñe ke.
The bugs are thick on us two,
Wagrí wéwaraš^ògeñe ke.
The bugs are thick on you,
Wagrí aríraš^ògeñe ke.
The bugs are thick on her,
Wagrí raráš^ògeñe ke.
The bugs are thick on us all,
Wagrí wéwaraš^ògenawi ke.
The bugs are thick on you all,
Wagrí aríraš^ògenawi ke.
There’s lots of bugs on them 2,
Wagrí wéraš^ògewi ke.
There’s lots of bugs on them all,
Wagrí wéraš^ògeñe ke.
You say that you have Ponca/ Omaha examples saying "he jumps on them" following a pattern of: a + wa + t^ánwe. Can you give that example, and if need be, we can run I by the list, which has been quiet lately.
Somewhere, I have more explaination, but it does not revel itself where it is to be located.
Meanwhile, Jill Greer says:
it seems more efficient to suggest that (glottal) \ˀ \ works to identify boundaries between morphemes, and other processes related to preserving word meaning rather than at the level of the basic inventory and system of sounds (phonology).
(-6) Locatives: a- ‘on, upon, over’, u- ‘in, within, into’, i- ‘at, to, by’ (Whitman 1946:241)
These combine with the prefix wa2a- (indefinitely extended object) to make a “heavy” syllable; it has a longer vowel, and usually attracts stress also. Examples of this process were discussed earlier in the section on nominal prefixes. wa: < wa1- + a- ‘on’ wo: < wa1- + u- ‘in’ wi: < wa1- + i- ‘at, to, by’
Hi¸yi¸no| wo-waxoñita¸ rithawe urakhiñe da | ‘Brother| when they tell about this beautiful ceremony|
waˀu¸ waruphi | Rire añe na the wonderful work it does| they say it’s You.’
I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”?
I don't have an immediate answer for you, as I said, I'm lacking some reference at the moment. However, a difference that I see in the shortened "shúnta (wolf) > shún" in the name Shúnmañikathi (Prairie Wolf), and "máha ~ máyan (land, dirt; earth) > ma-" in terms like "mák^e (cultivate; farm)" is those words begin with a noun, whereas, you are basing your case on a combination of an adjective + verb. There may be and like are such combinations, but the one you propose for the analysis of pink is highly unlikely.
PS: What ever became of you book with the llamas and tractors plus the traditional stories we did early in the year?
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:35 AM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: RE: Aho!
I’ve seen the overwhelming number of examples where wa- is combined with the first vowel. What I was curious about was if this convention changes specifically with the locative u-/a- prefixes. Then again, really haven’t seen any “on them” or “in them” verbs. The reason I’m asking is because it appears that Omaha/Ponca follows the convention of the “them” (wa-) coming after the “on” portion rather than before and I was curious if the same applied here. The Omaha/Ponca example I am referring to says “jump on them.”
I’m not sure I understand your rendering of “suje” if it were combined with “ut^axe”. I see where you are going with the “such^ot^axe” but my question is why would that be the only possible contraction/mashup of those two terms? If a term like “suntan” can be shortened to “sun” for Itan’s name without the glottal stop between the contracted “sun” and the rest of the name (the way I have Truman Dailey saying that name there isn’t a glottal stop but it just flows into the “mañi” portion of the name), why can’t “suje” be shortened to “su-“ and then just flow into “ut^axe”? I’m not trying to force my theory into the term “sut^axi” but at the same time I don’t understand how there is only one possible contraction type for this. Languages always have exceptions to guidelines (I prefer to use “guideline” rather than “rule” because of those exceptions hehehe).
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:47 PM
To: Campbell, Sky
Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD
Subject: Re: Aho!
I believe that wathéwe would be the better term, and more along the means that a wild fire is combated. Meanwhile, I commend you for your analytical innovative thinking. Impressive it is! However, typically when the sound "j" is combined with another word, thus loosing its final verb, the "j" (which has no glottal), changes to the sound "ch^" glottal. Please note how this works with the word "shoe" as it is combined to form the word for "moccasin":
agúje + ukéñi > agúch^okeñi
If "súje" were to combine with "“utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”" the rendered result would be = such^ot^axe.
Your logic is without question, it just that the rules of IOM phonics will not stand the test.
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: RE: Aho!
Ahh, ok. So if “githewe” uses “gi” as the instrumental part which is “by means of stricking, cutting with axe, by action of wind”, would “wathewe” be a better term since those are pretty specific?
Also, I think I have a theory behind the term “sut^axi” (pink)!
I found that Dorsey had a term “otaxe/utaxe” which he translated as “to soak through, or to be seen through, on the other side, as writing or grease on thin paper” as well as “to soak through as water through a blanket, or rain through clothing.” He has a glottal stop in there but it looks like it is before the “t” (IE “o^taxe/u^taxe). But still, bear with me J.
So what about “sut^axi” being a combination of “suje” and “utaxe/u^taxe/ut^axe”? Then it would translate as “red being seen through” which would definitely fit the idea of pink since it is a lighter version of red. And no doubt the color would be diluted if it was “seen through” something.
What do you think? I remember you saying that term was a mystery J.
There was something else I was going to ask you but I forget what it was J. Hope your weekend went well!
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:54 AM
To: Campbell, Sky
Subject: Re: Aho!
Remember that "wa-" has many applications. In the "wa-" to which you refer, you are correct, and it would make the term a noun. The "wa-" in use here is the instrumental prefix added to a verb, just as the same is true with "gi".
The full entry is:
extinguish (with s.t., as a fire or by action of the wind) v.t. githéwe: (I…, héthewe; you…, réthewe; we…, hingíthewewi; they…, githéweñe). Last night we had quite a storm, and the lights were all out (caused by the strong wind), Danáñida hánheda táje pí škúñi náhe ke; dákan bróge githéwe ke. You can use that shovel to put out the fire, Mak^é sé^e ^únna péje réthewešdún ke. Then they will extinguish the fire, Hédan péje githeweñe hñe ke. extinguish (by blowing on); blow out v.t. bothéwe: (I…, habóthewe; you…, rabóthewe; we…, hinbóthewewi; they…, bothéweñe). Will you blow out the lamp (lantern), Wirádakanhin rabóthewe je. extinguish (firebrand) by pushing it into ground, water; punch and make black v.t. wathéwe: (I…, hapáthewe; you…, swáthewe; we…, hinwáthewewi; they…, wathéweñe).
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:24 PM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: Re: Aho!
Is wathewe "something black" in that a fire that has been put out leaves charred remains? Would the "githewe" version refer to someone else's fire being put out (IE put out a fire for someone)?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Jimm G. GoodTracks" <jgoodtracks at gmail.com> wrote:
Either that or Wathéwe Wan^shíge.
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: RE: Aho!
And one more quick question LOL.
Some Otoe-Missouria firefighters recently went out to fight one of the wildfires recently. One of our directors here has asked me to translate something like “fireman” or “firefighter” for them. He wants to have some shirts made for them I think. I didn’t want to accidentally use a NAC term for “fire man” as I understand that is a role during meetings. So what I came up with was:
Githewe Wan^shige (extinquish fire person)
What do you think?
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:56 AM
To: Campbell, Sky
Cc: KENNETHA GREENWOOD
Subject: Re: Aho!
It is my impression that the professional linguists consider that the future marker "hñe" is actually a suffix attached to the verb, such as it is in Spanish:
Viajo (I travel) > Viajaré (I will travel).
Thus, thinking along these same kind of lines, Yes, you could write your verbal statement as you have it - Hinmañita hnye ke - OR even write the whole thing as a single unit -Hinmañitahnye ke. For me, the longer the word, the more likely it'll be misconstrued. Maybe it is our English mindset, whatever! The likelihood of error seems to increase. Thus, I tend to separate what the professionals call suffixes, keeping them as independent units, or sometimes, and only sometimes, adding a hyphen, for the prevention of confussion. An example of the latter, would be such as: Ahéthewe-da gre hñe ke (He is going to return to the Black Hills."
At any rate, I believe we are on the same page. As one becomes more familiar with the language, such preferences and liberties should present little difficultiy for the astute. Aréhga je.
I have seen "ho/ha; taho/taha ~ hahdo/a" sometimes rendered as "please." For me, sometimes that is a fit, other times, not so much.
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: RE: Aho!
Ok. It also sounds like the same thing is going on for “taho/taha” as far as polite commands and/or “let’s.”
I’ve had a few people express confusion over this as far as when/how it is used. My tentative investigation in this has led me to think that maybe it would be easier for learners to understand this if it were represented differently on paper (but pronounced the same obviously). For example:
Hinmanyi tahnye ke
Would become:
Hinmanyita hnye ke.
And:
Hinmanyi taho.
Would become:
Hinmanyita ho.
I’ve spoken with several people and they say the latter examples help them understand what is going on much easier. But before I make a change like this, I’m wanting to explore it a bit more. But if it is simply a case of “-wi” becoming “-ta”, then switching to the latter would be easy.
What do you think?
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
From: Jimm G. GoodTracks [mailto:jgoodtracks at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Campbell, Sky
Subject: Re: Aho!
Yes, Rimíngke ke (You're correct). Let me further comment below....
From: Campbell, Sky
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:34 AM
To: Jimm G. GoodTracks
Subject: Aho!
I’ve got a quick question for the plural “will” since we are on the subject. We may have covered this before but I’m wanting to be sure LOL.
I know that the 1st and 2nd future plural replaces –wi with “ta/da”.
Hinmanyi tahnye ke (1st person plural) (CORRECT)
Ramanyi tahnye ke (2nd person plural) (CORRECT)
I am unsure about these:
Hinmanyi hnye ke (1st person dual) (UNSURE BUT I THINK IT IS RIGHT!!)
Manyi tahnye (3rd person dual) (UNSURE!!)
THIRD PERSON DUAL: I already have a note to myself to look for examples from texts, and notes from whatever source. I too wonder about that one. Logically, it should follow suit with FIRST PERS DUAL, since the "-wi" acts in a different capacity. It is like the various uses for the multi-tasking "wa-." If you find examples before me. Let me know.
Also, do you know what the “ta” is doing on there? You have in your dictionary “This suffix “-ta” ~ hahda” replaces “-wi” (plural suffix) before another suffix.” Does that mean the “-ta” is a contracted form of “hahda”? If so, what is that? You have it as “anew, renew, return” but I’m doubtful that is the idea here.
It was in looking at my dictionary entry that I became dissatisfied with the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no satisfactory example or explanation for THIRD PERSON DUAL. You can be sure that the entry will be revised when I have new information at hand. Meanwhile, avoid using TPD in the future tense or change it to regular TPP.
I had a friend to reboot the Skype, so now there is an ICON on the LAP desktop, but it is only the LAP. Not on the desktop of the Desktop. Perhaps, next week, I'll try to give you a buzz on it, or whatever it does to let the other party know they are called.
Have you tried to connect with the CAAP files on Satellite via PeggyBank? What is your impression if so? I've heard no more from Saul - whatever that means - as to PB slowing some of the recordings to a more typical speed.
I hope all is well up your way J.
Sky Campbell, B. A.
Language Director
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
580-723-4466 ext. 111
sky at omtribe.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130904/29271eed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17540 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130904/29271eed/attachment.jpg>
More information about the Siouan
mailing list