Nêhiyawêwin for the Nêhiyaw, Koko

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-02, 19:14

Thanks for that ^_^ I know it will take time, but at the moment without much introduction to the language, it's so daunting. I think it should seem easier once i'm passed the present tense in most verb types.

Actually, with my little knowledge i can spot "gaa" > "ka" and one past tense marker (i honestly hate how many ways to mark tense in this/these(?) language(s) there are) in Cree is also "kî." I think the difference between kî and the preterite is that the former requires the relative or conjunct form.

I wonder why the relative prefix has a long vowel in Ojibwe but short in Cree.

Your post also reminds me that i have to get in the habit of voicing my consonants. (So hard when the custom is to write them with letters i know to be unvoiced obstruents)

Yeah. The glosses are so weird. The way the affixes come together and everything looks so jumbled but then the translation clears everything up. Kinda exciting to know i (hopefully) will be able to understand them with efficiency.

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-03, 19:35

I wonder why the relative prefix has a long vowel in Ojibwe but short in Cree.

Nevermind, it is a long vowel. I got it confused with the future preverb ka-.

Random sentences without checking my notes:

1. Mostos niwâpamânan. We (exc) see the buffalo.
2. Kisêkihitin. I scare you.
3. Sîsîp niwâpamikonân. The duck see us (exc).
4. Minôsa* kimiyikonâwak iskwêwak. The women give us (inc) a cat.
5. Kitêm mowêyiwa nâpêw. The man is eating your horse.

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-03, 21:09

Hmm. It seems many words ending in -i have two forms: one that is indeclinable ending in -i, and another that is ending in -ih.

Ex. ôsi — canoe, boat; ôsih (obv/pl. ôsiha) — canoe, boat
mihti — piece of wood; mihtih (obv/pl. mihtiha)

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-04, 1:20

Corrections:
1. Mostos niwâpamânân. We (exc) see the buffalo.

4. Minôsa* kimiyikonawak iskwêwak. The women give us (inc) a cat.

I forgot to add the footnote too: [*] I don't know if minôs has to be obviative or not, but I feel it should right?

5. Kitêm mowêyiwa nâpêwa. The man is eating your horse.

I feel ashamed i forgot to make nâpêw obviative. Otherwise the sentence would make no sense!!

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-04, 7:49

K oh my god i just confused myself so much and now i don't understand anything.

So the TA obviative infix -im- means the object has to take the obviative -a, right? But then why is it necessary to have -imêw and -imêwak, since when you say something like "He carries the child" (awâsisa nayomêw) child already has to be obviative? Is there an emphasis in saying awâsisa nayomimêw? Or does it mean something entirely different?

Wait wait… the obviative is used when the thing/person referred to isn't present, right? So does awâsisa nayomêw mean the child is present and awâsisa nayomimêw mean the child isn't? But then that doesn't make sense either because for "him" to carry the child the child would have to be there!

Am i just stressing over this too much and the -im- actually doesn't matter that much even though it's in the table given here (page 23)?

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: (Plains) Cree— Nêhiyawêwin

Postby Koko » 2016-09-04, 21:12

Hm, i just learned something: even if the dependent form of a noun is very similar to the independent form, they aren't the same. :P (which seems obvious but hush, read below)

I thought -têm was |têmw| and thus became -têmwak and -têmwa in the plural and obviative. Like how atim -> atimwak But nope, it's |têm|, no w in the s(tem) [ :P ] at all.


Return to “North American Indigenous Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests