*wąk- ~ *wą•k-
ųk- ~ ų-
ųk- ~ ų-
*ąk- /__V; *ą- /__C
ąg- ~ ą-
ǫg- ~ ąg-, ǫ- ~ ą-
, †ǫk-, †ǫ
, †ǫk-, †ǫ
ǫk- ~ ąk-, ǫ ~ ą
[with plural marker -tu]
Proto-Siouan was *wąk- or *wą•k- but with the original meaning ‘man, person (1)’, q.v., not an inclusive prefix. Languages that use this morpheme for ‘inclusive actor’, ‘inclusive patient’ or both tend to replace the original ‘man, person’ term with a neologism. Note that there is no corresponding inalienable possessor prefix. Nor is this morpheme found in Crow/Hidatsa. Cf. ‘1st plural (exclusive?)’.
The original Proto-Siouan prefix may have been *ʔų-, matching Yuchi ʔǫ- ‘12Act’, and retained as the only ‘12Act’ allomorph in Ofo (which lacks any trace of k). More recent forms with reflexes of *wąk- would be reanalyses in terms of ‘man, person (1)’. Crow woo ‘let’s’ apparently is an inflected suffix. Hidatsa indicates ‘let’s’ with the suffix ʔo, perhaps cognate with the Crow oo; but Hidatsa does not inflect this. These may possibly be related to ‘12Act’ in the rest of Siouan, but this is unclear, since Crow and Hidatsa lose all vowel nasalization.
Hoocąk hį•- and wą•g- may possibly be doublets, hįį- coming from *wą•-. Alternatively, it could also come from *mį• which has the same sporadic outcome. Note that 1st singular patient *wą- has (as expected) lost its labial and that the remaining *ą- > į- irregularly; cf. ‘crayfish’. (The h- is semi-regularly epenthetic in both Chiwere and Hoocąk.) The same irregular *ą- > *į- change applied to the 1st person inclusive *ą•- would also yield hį•-, thus making wąąg- and hįį- historically allomorphs. Since the ą > į change is very restricted, this may just be another way of saying that the 1st singular patient has been analogically extended.
hįį is actually probably cognate with mį in other languages < *wį. It is strictly ‘dual’ in Hoocąk. It is an actor pronominal, whereas wą•ga is a patient pronominal. (RR) (Helmbrecht, PC)
Cf. Proto-Keresan *hínU ‘I, we’ Miller and Davis, IJAL-29, p.322.