Locatives and wa- problems.

[Iren Hartmann]

Bob,

oh, I see, sorry, you were not talking about pronominal affixes really (at least synchronically), but about the emphatic free standing personal pronouns of Hoocąk. They are:

1st SG & PL nee
2nd SG & PL nee
3rd SG & PL ee

Most likely they were indeed derived from the demonstrative ee (retained in the 3rd person due to zero inflection) with a prefix nį- in the first and second person (nowadays speakers only use the contracted form nee, not nį’e any more, but some older speakers can still understand it). 

I’m curious, have the free standing pronouns in the other Siouan languages also been derived from seemingly inflected demonstratives?

Best,
Iren

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:01:37 +0000
From: rankin at KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems.
To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu







Iren,



Yes, nįį is the portmanteau for I/you corresponding to Dakotan chi- and Dhegiha
wi-.  That's not the nį I'm talking about.  We corresponded about this a couple of months ago.  In the Zeps and Miner dictionaries there is a
nįe that is translated simply
'I'.  Like most disjunctive pronominals in Siouan it is attached to
?e as a prefix.  I'll need to go back through our correspondence or the dictionaries and double check the form.



Bob






As for loans, I think there were a handful of loans from Algonquian that Miner already marked in his field lexicon of Hoocąk as such. I remember
haramįhe (or haramehi) ’week, (Christian) cross’ was one such case.. here is another good reason to get all the dictionaries into good digital shape (also the Algonquian ones), so we can search more efficiently for potential loan words, I think
 that would be an interesting project..



As for what was written about nį- being first person actor inflection, this is not entirely true, it is first person A acting on 2nd person U, described in the past as a portmanteau of ha- and nį-. (In the past this has been described as being long nįį-,
 but this I have not found to be true, it is always short just as the 2nd Undergoer pronominal affix.) Doesn’t Lakotha have something like this? Also, we saw something similar for Chiwere at this year’s conference in the presentation about causatives, only
 there it was theorized that the nį- just expressed the 2nd U and the 1st A remained unexpressed.. Or am I missing something here?



Also there was the question of the pluralization of the different person forms, the Hoocąk paradigm (for class 1 conjugations) looks like this:

S/A (subjects, actor)



1 excl SG / PL: ha- / ha- ... -wi

du / 1 incl: hį- / hį-... -wi 

2 SG/ PL: ra- /ra- ...-wi

3 SG / PL:  [zero] / -ire



I hope this helps.

Best,

Iren



> This is the first I've heard that Hochunk ní for first person is from Algonquian -- what would the word be expected to be in Hochunk, based on Chiwere and Proto-Siouan?







Proto-Siouan for 1st sg.agentive was probably *wa-.  It has allomorphs *b-, p-, m-. 
and in Chiwere-Winnebago evolved into *ha-.  In Dhegiha *a-.  There is no trace of any 1st person 
ni- in Siouan anywhere except in Hochunk (Winnebago).  












 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130910/e81dadc2/attachment.htm>