Locatives and wa- problems.

[Iren Hartmann]

No, this is correct for the emphatic free standing personal pronouns, there is only a distinction between 1st & 2nd person vs. 3rd person, there is no distinction made in number. These are highly underspecified. Number distinctions are only made on the verb in Hoocąk never on nouns or pronouns.

- Iren

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:27:58 -0500
From: jgoodtracks at GMAIL.COM
Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems.
To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu








 

Irene:
 
How is it that 2nd SG & Pl  and  3rd  
SG & Pl  are the same?   Did you mean to write it that way, 
or is it a typo?
 




From: Iren Hartmann 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:22 AM
To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu 
Subject: Re: Locatives and wa- problems.


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/20130910/7c016233/attachment.htm>