one (1)

numeral abstract_number

Proto-Siouan-Catawba *rų•-

Proto-Siouan *rų•-sa

Proto-Crow-Hidatsa

Crow hawáta ‘one’ RG

Hidatsa ruwáca, nuwáca ‘one’ AWJ

Proto-Mississipi-Valley

Proto-Dhegiha

Quapaw nǫxtį ‘once, one time’ JOD

Proto-Southeastern *nų•sa

Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *nǫ́sa

Biloxi soⁿ´sa, soⁿsá , †sǫsa ‘one’ D&S:257b

Ofo nû´fha, nû´fhá , †nǫfhá ‘one’ D&S:327a

Proto-Tutelo-Saponi

Tutelo noñç; noñs, nosāi, noñsa , †nǫ́•sa, †nǫsá•, etc. ‘one’ N, HH:20 , blǭs , †nǫ́•sa, †nǫsá•, etc. ‘two (sic)’ ES:296 , nǭs , †nǫ́•sa, †nǫsá•, etc. ‘one’ ES:296 , noⁿs , †nǫ́•sa, †nǫsá•, etc. LJF:16

Proto-Catawba

Catawba napę́, dəpę ‘one’ KS:171, FGS

Woccon tonne ‘one’ JL , soone noponne ‘one ten’ JL

General comment

Hidatsa nuwáca probably includes the -ca ‘all of’ suffix.

However, this analysis is not transparent to speakers. In both Crow and Hidatsa, one appears to be related to some: Crow hawá; Hidatsa nuwá. In connection with this, cf. the similarity of Catawba dαpę ‘one’, dopα ‘something’ (Voorhis). We seem to have evidence for an ancient association between the numeral and the indefinite. Perhaps Crow and Hidatsa (and perhaps Catawba) are not really cognate here, but reflect an old process.

Alternatively, Crow may have replaced the cognate portion of the root. Biloxi initial s- is presumably due to assimilation at a distance, but it is not regular. Cf. ‘collective suffix’.

Details Language Word Source