ripe, cooked

verb physical_condition

Proto-Siouan-Catawba

Proto-Siouan *aRú•tE

Proto-Crow-Hidatsa *ó•tE (?)

Crow óoši ‘ripe; cooked; burnt; dyed’ GG:52

Hidatsa ó•tE ‘ripe, cooked, burnt, done’ J

Proto-Mississipi-Valley Rú•te

Proto-Dakota *Rúta

Lakota lúta ‘red’ RTC

Dakota dúta ‘red’ SRR:109

Proto-Hoocąk-Chiwere *Rú•te

Chiwere dú•ǰe ‘ripe’ RR

Hoocąk túuč ‘ripe, cooked’ KM:3144 , tuuc

Proto-Dhegiha *Rǘ•te

Omaha-Ponca ní•de ‘ripe’ KS

Kanza/Kaw ǰüǰe ‘burned (cooking)’ RR

Osage DSiúdse , †cǘce ‘ripe, mature’ LF:39b

Quapaw títte ‘ripe, cooked’ JOD

Proto-Southeastern

Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *atúti or: *arúti

Biloxi atûtí , †atutí ‘ripe’ D&S:277b

Ofo atúti , †atúti ‘ripe, cooked, done’ D&S:322b

General comment

If the Crow/Hidatsa forms are cognate, they suggest that the *R of this term is one of the epenthetic glides. On Hidatsa ó•ti (Crow óoši compare Hidatsa aru > o•/__r; aku > o•/__k). If the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa form were *atuti (cf.

Biloxi) and if the aru/aku rules were more general, then Proto-Crow-Hidatsa **atuti > *o•ti. Proto-Biloxi-Ofo is difficult because the two attested forms suggest different sources. Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *atuti should give Biloxi atuti but Ofo athuti; Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *aruti should give Biloxi aduti but Ofo atuti. The evidence that Ofo was t and not th is strong, whereas there are several examples where Biloxi forms are recorded with both tand d. We therefore conclude that Biloxi may be a transcription error, and posit *r. Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *r for Proto-Siouan *R is regular. If BO actually is *r, however, the Proto-Crow-Hidatsa comment no longer applies and Crow and Hidatsa are not cognate.

Details Language Word Source