Locatives and wa- problems.

[Rankin, Robert L.]

> First, in my experience with Omaha, I believe that for verbs that begin with u- followed by another syllable, the u- is pretty much always the locative prefix.  Some of these verbs are very old and have become “generalized” so that it may be hard to see the “in” sense of the u-.  But it should originally be there.

This is true of all four “locative” prefixes in all the Siouan languages.  The fact that the set is found in every Siouan language means that these prefixes are over 3000 years old.  It is not surprising that they have lost their original meaning in many cases.  This is discussed for Dakotan in Boas and Deloria.

> The question arises of whether the affixed pronoun wa- is the same as the general detransitivizing “whatchacome” wa-.  I believe it has been suggested on the list that these might be etymologically two separate wa-‘s.  I’ve always tended to think of them as variant developments of the same prefix though.  It seems to me that distributive plural object pronouns like ‘us’ and ‘(animate) them’ would be a very natural development for a “whatchacome” wa- that detransitivizes verbs by filling in for any old object.

I think the ‘us’ morpheme is distinct, or, at least it seems to be.  It often seems to be associated with another –a- that leaves it long.  Whether the other two are distinct or the same historically is a vexed question.

I’ve also heard that Hochunk has preserved a more complicated conjugation pattern that is probably more like that of the original language, and perhaps Otoe-Missouria did likewise?

It’s hard to say whether the “different” Hochunk pattern represents a retention of something lost everywhere else or an innovation, perhaps brought on by extensive contact with Algonquian,  Personally, I’d be surprised to find such a pattern preserved on only one language with no trace left in any of the others unless that language formed a unique subgroup within the language family (like Mandan does, for example).

There are some peculiarities of Chiwere and Hochunk that are shared and therefore likely retentions.  Among these is the special 3rd plural suffix.  Mandan has -kere ‘3pl, Hochunk has –ire ‘3pl’, Chiwere has -(a)ñe ‘3pl’, and Tutelo has -hele• ‘3pl’.  And although there is disagreement about parts of this enclitic, the set strongly suggests that there was some sort of 3pl subject marker.

> But while I mentioned that my gut tells me there is no real difference [in the meanings of wa- and wa- -- RLR], I still wonder if there is a difference and if there is a definite THEM if it would follow your pattern of coming after the locative vowel prefix.

That would be surprising.

>manyi – he/she/it walks
manyiwi – they-dual walk
manyinye – they-plural walk
 Older sources don’t list this form.

Lack in older sources could stem from several problems.  Older grammarians lacked linguistic training and therefore expected Native languages to have the same categories as European languages.  Exceptions to this were sometimes simply excised as “illogical.”

> Also, I understand that some dialects retain an older system in which the ‘I’ form can be pluralized as well to make inclusive we (you and I), as opposed to exclusive we (I and somebody else, but not you), which is conveyed by the standard ‘we’ form.  (I’m going off my memory here; Bob may understand it better.)

That would be surprising too.  The form without –(a)wi should already be ‘inclusive’ as it is in the other languages.  I don’t know of any Siouan languages where you can pluralize the 1st sg. form of the verb.  I could be corrected on this though.

> Omaha has third person [verb]-bi, just as Otoe-Missouria has third person [verb]-wi.  The elements are the same; it’s only the meanings that are different.

I analyze the pluralizing morphemes as developments from –api.  I don’t see a difference in meaning really.  It means ‘pluralizer’ throughout Mississippi Valley Siouan.  Maybe you’re talking about the 3sg use of –abi in Dhegiha to signal what John called ‘proximate vs. obviative’.  I guess I’d consider that a distinct morpheme and not really the pluralizer.  But, again, I could be corrected on this.

>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].

That makes perfect sense to me.  It’s the normal meaning and order for the a- and o- locatives.  I don’t see a problem here, but maybe I didn’t get one of the messages in the sequence.

Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130907/f56d192e/attachment.htm>