tell

verb social_communication

Proto-Siouan-Catawba

Proto-Siouan *(o-)_rá•ke

Proto-Mississipi-Valley *o_ráke

Proto-Dakota *o_ráka

Lakota o_yáka ‘tell’ RTC , o_gláka ‘tell one’s own’ RTC

Dakota o_yáka ‘relate, tell’ SRR:397a , o_hdáka ‘tell one’s own’ SRR:350b

Stoney o_yaga ~ e_yaga PAS:591 , o_hnága PAS:591

Proto-Hoocąk-Chiwere *o_ráke

Chiwere uláge ‘tell about something, tell to’ W:244a , uráge ‘news, story’ LWR:32 , worage ‘tell stories, tell about something’ LWR:37 , worage LWR:37

Hoocąk ho_rák ‘tell, relate’ KM:1476 , horak

Proto-Dhegiha *o_rá(-ke)

Omaha-Ponca utha , †oða ‘tell’ MAS:170

Kanza/Kaw oyáge ‘tell’ RR

Osage utháge , †o_ðáke ‘tell a tale or a story’ LF:175b , uḳígthage , †ohkílake ‘speak of oneself’ LF:171b

Quapaw odáke ‘tell about something’ RR

Proto-Southeastern *o-ki-rá•ki

Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *oktaki

Biloxi kû´tĭki´ , †kətiki ‘tell what one has perceived himself’ D&S:217a

Ofo oktạki , †oktəki ‘tell’ D&S:327b

Proto-Tutelo-Saponi

Tutelo oaklaka , †okláka ‘speak’ H , gelāki , †kelá•ki ‘call’ H , oḳlaxá, oḳlákaⁿ , †okláka ‘speak, tell’ JOD

General comment

Cf. ‘speak, talk’. The derivational morphemes, *o- and *-ke are so widespread that we suspect that the one or two cases in which they are lacking represent instances of loss, not independent constructions. The last of the Tutelo forms shows a suffixed reflex of ʔǫ ‘do, aux.’. The Biloxi forms are not technically cognate since they have t and i where they should have d and a. The case for the end reconstruction is just as strong without them however. Overall, this verb appears to be a doublet of *ra- the ‘mouth, instrumental’ prefix with the requisite derivational paraphernalia. This would match Siebert’s analysis of the Catawba cognates for Siouan instrumental prefixes according to which all were active verbs which participated in serial verb constructions in Catawba.

Details Language Word Source