door (2)

noun physical_artefact_part


Proto-Siouan *wiyé(-pe) ~ *wiyé(-he)

Proto-Crow-Hidatsa *wirehe

Crow bilía ‘door’ GG:31, RGG:42

Hidatsa wiré• ‘door’ J , miré•

Pre-Mandan *:wrehe

Mandan wérehe ‘door’ RTC

Proto-Mississipi-Valley *hti yepe

Proto-Dakota *thiyépa

Lakota thiyépa ‘the door of a tent, consisting of a piece of leather’ EB:490b

Yanktonai tiyepa , †thiyepa ‘door’ WM:53a

Proto-Dhegiha *htí žepe

Omaha-Ponca ttí žebe ‘door’ MAS:61 , tí zhebe

Kanza/Kaw čči žébe ‘door’ RR

Osage ṭsí zhebe , †hcí žepe ‘door’ LF:164b

Quapaw ttíže ‘door’ JOD


Proto-Biloxi-Ofo *-yépi

Biloxi (a)yɛpeʔ MRH , əyɛpeʔ MS , yepi, ayéwi D&S:176b

Ofo ĭtcē´pi , †ičé•pi ‘door’ D&S:324b, JSS

General comment

The first syllable of the reconstructed form looks like *wi- unless there is consistent raising of *wa > *wi before a palatal in both Ofo and Crow, cf. ‘dog’. The MRS, Mandan, and Quapaw forms, along with the variation of final syllables, suggests that *wi-ye•-pe consists of at least two and probably three morphemes. At least -pe/i appears to be separate. Cf. ‘enter (2)’. The Lakota compound consists of thi ‘house’ and a second morpheme in which Proto-Siouan *y was reinterpreted as epenthetic. Otherwise the *y should have yielded čh in Dakotan in parallel with DH ž. If Proto-Siouan was *wiyé•he and MVS and OVS added *-pe later, then the sequence h-pe does not work the same way as *h-ka, which yields Dakotan -kha. The fact that we do not get -phe strongly suggests that -pe is suffixed directly to *wiyé•, not the derivational stem *wiyé•h-.

Crow has treated the inherited *-ehe (see Mandan) the way that both Crow and Hidatsa treat *-ihe, i.e. > -ia. Hidatsa -e• suggests that *-ehe and *-iha may have been kept distinct in pre-Hidatsa. Cf. ‘enter (2)

Details Language Word Source