Re: Miapimoquitch text: Eye Juggler (long)
| From: | Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, January 23, 2004, 13:31 |
|---|
On Wednesday, January 21, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> An absolutely charming story, which is already half-translated to
> Kash. Soon
> to appear.
As I said in the introduction to the story, the Miapimoquitch version
is closer to the Shoshoni one, except that the Shoshoni version has
black headed birds teasing Coyote, and Coyote makes for himself a
"sixth sense" rather than new eyes out of pine sap. The Ute version is
more gruesome; it is a man who takes out his eyes and loses them. His
wives then trick him into falling off of a cliff. His leg breaks off in
the fall, and he eats the marrow from it, thinking it is from a deer.
> However, rather than ponder new animal analogues, for the moment
> I simply snitch/use "peya" and "tapun" ("tavun"?) for Coyote and
> Cottontail,
> and adapt <quya> 'pine sap' > huya or kuya 'resin, (sticky) sap of
> certain
> trees' (which will probably lead to an "amber" analogue, then to a
> tech.term
> for fossil ~ -ized. An unending process........).
Cool. So there will be Miapimoquitch loans in Kash!
> Minor question:
>> 1. [s1'piD1 ?i ?a'p1ja j1'hamm1Ga "1s1'p1G1~: ?i ?a'taBun1]
>> sepite i apeya ehammeka esepeken i atapune
>>
> Where does the initial [j] on ehammeka (and a few other cases) come
> from?
> Some sort of hiatus avoider? conditioned by stress? a peculiarity of
> "e"
> [1]?? I also noticed a case of "...a i..." as [...a ji...] versus
> more
> usual [...a ?i...]. Homer nodding?
Hmmm. The idea was that initial [j] served to resolve hiatus, but later
I introduced [?] for the same purpose. It seems to divide up this way:
if the high vowel is introduced by the morphology, [j] is the hiatus
avoider. If the word is vowel-initial, glottal stop is used. I might
just chuck the glide altogether, or learn to live with producing
inconsistencies. Both have their appeal ...
Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so
simple we couldn't.
- Lyall Watson
Reply