Question re: Dhegiha and other Siouan quotatives

[David Kaufman]

Kaw, at least in the attested data, doesn't seem to have a verb for "be
able to" either.  This concept seems to require the verb "miss" or "lack"
when the negative idea 'not be able to' is needed.  This is another
interesting question as regards comparative Siouan.  How do other Siouan
languages handle the concept "be able to" or "not be able to"?  Biloxi has
a verb xa for 'be able, ought, should' as well as a couple of particles to
represent this idea.

Dave

David Kaufman
Linguistic Anthropology PhD candidate, University of Kansas
Director, Kaw Nation Language Program


On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Sky Campbell <sky at legendreaders.com> wrote:

> Your mention of the Lakota term "okihi" has me very interested and also
> ties
> into these serial verbs.  Hamilton has in his "An Ioway Grammar" book on
> page 52:
>
> --------------begin Hamilton---------------
>
> This mood does not express power or ability to do an act, as its name might
> seem to imply. Ability expressed by can in English is not properly
> expressed
> by any one of the moods, but generally by the subjunctive and potential
> together; as,
>
> Ha-u e-ha-tu-ka-na-skć, ha-u-hna-sku. If I willed it, I would do it.
> Literally: I do, if I will it, I may do it.
>
> --------------end Hamilton---------------
>
> Here Hamilton is referring to what he calls the "potential mood."  I'm
> curious about Lakota having the one word for "to be able" ("can") whereas
> Hamilton says it isn't that simple in Ioway.  But on the subject of serial
> verbs, the above shows 3 verbs (2 of them being the same):
>
> ha'u - I do/work/make/create
>
> ihaduganasge - if I willed it (I've seen this also as "ihadugra" (minus the
> -nasge))
>
> ha'uhnasgu - I may do it (here is the same verb "ha'u" with a few extra
> suffixes to change the meaning a bit)
>
> So here again we have 3 verbs all conjugated.  I wasn't sure I'd find one
> beyond something along the lines of bring/take something somewhere.  But
> the
> mention of "to be able" reminded me of Hamilton's above phrase.
>
>
> Sky
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siouan Linguistics [mailto:SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu] On Behalf Of Jan
> Ullrich
> Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2014 4:31 AM
> To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> Subject: Re: Question re: Dhegiha and other Siouan quotatives
>
> > Several people have noted (not sure whether published or not) that
> > Lakota
> complements
> > to verbs that require same-subject for both verbs (e.g.
> > 'try') do not allow affixes on the first verb, while those which
> > permit a
> change of subject (like 'want')
> > do require that both verbs be marked.
>
> I have been under the impression that there are only two Lakota verbs that
> require both verbs in a complex predicate to be conjugated. They are chin
> 'to want' and okihi 'to be able to'.
> If there is data pointing to other verbs that behave like this it would be
> useful to know.
>
> Jan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20140301/46f8ca1c/attachment.htm>