Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:58:19.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Note on Phonological Change in Ojibwa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

William Cowan*
Affiliation:
Carleton University

Extract

In the course of his discussion of the relative merits of transformational generative phonology (TGP) and natural generative phonology (NGP), Piggott (1980) introduces as evidence in favour of TGP two phonological changes that took place between Proto-Algonquian and Ojibwa in the following chronological order.: (1) final lax vowel deletion, and (2) the deletion of resulting word-final glides *-w and *-y. By change (1), Proto-Algonquian *elenyiw-a ‘man’ mutatis mutandis became *i/iniw, and by change (2), *iliniw became *i/ini, modern Algonquin dialect of Ojibwa anini. Much of Piggott’s argumentation in favour of TGP rests on certain types of exceptions to these historical processes. In the first type, a Proto-Algonquian form *ne-wi-nteko-wil ‘I am a Windigo [cannibal monster],’ and other verb forms of similar morphemic constituency, underwent final lax vowel deletion and became *ni-wīndigōw, but failed to undergo final glide deletion. This was because the final *-i, unlike the final *-a in *elenyiw-a, an inflectional suffix which does not occur anywhere in the paradigm of the modern word anini, was a derivational morpheme and part of the verb stem, and was retained in non-final position. There it stands in morphophonemic alternation with its own absence, as shown by forms such as ni-wīndigōwi-min < *ne-wi·nieko·wi-Hmena ‘we are Windigos.’ The underlying form of the singular verb is hence ni-wīndigōwi, and the fact that the surface word-final glide -w was not elided is adduced as evidence that the phonological change is better described in reference to the abstract, underlying form rather than the surface form. Since TGP can distinguish between underlying and surface word-final glides and NGP presumably cannot, Piggott claims that TGP can better characterize this change than can NGP.

Type
Remarks/Remarques
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baraga, Bishop (1880) A Dictionary of the Otchipwe Language. Part II. Otchipwe-English. Montréal: Beauchemin and Valois.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1925) “On the sound-system of Central Algonquian.” Language 1:13056.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1946) “Algonquian.” In Hoijer, et al., Linguistic Structures of Native America. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6:85129.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1958) Eastern Ojibwa. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives (1973) “Proto-Algonquian *nl and *nθ .” IJAL 39:16.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Piggott, Glyne L. (1973) “On the cyclical nature of Ojibwa t-palatalization.” In Piggott, and Kaye, eds. (1973):327.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. and Vendryes, J. (1966) Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. 4th edition. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Pentland, David (1979) “Algonquian historical phonology. “Ph. D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1980) “Implications of linguistic change for concrete phonology.” CJL/RCL 25:119.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. and Kaye, Jonathan, eds (1973) Odawa Language Project. Second report. Centre for Linguistic Studies, University of Toronto. Linguistic Series No. 1. [Includes Odawa-English dictionary.]Google Scholar
Wilson, E. F. (1874) The Ojebway Language. Toronto: Rosewell and Hutchinson. [Photographic reprint by Department of Indian Affairs, n.d.]Google Scholar