Hello, @ 8:34 you say "hi (h)ni", but when checking Chafe's seneca grammar, i don't find the rule where *hni > hi ? the rule i found is *hni > :ni (h drops and the previous vowel is lengthened, though here there isnt a vowel so not sure how that plays out ). Thx!
You definitely won't find everything in there. Even the pronoun chart in there uses older spelling with k where you'd find g today, and t where you'd find a d, among other things. The 2 male prefix is always the weirdest one. Regular 2 males like it Hinöe's Or, if you make it dualic De:ninöe's If you negate the regular one, de:ninöe's If you negate the dualic version, ta'de:ninöe's This is where (h)ni comes into play. Experience from several years of teaching this repeatedly has led me to explain it that this verb has an (h) on there so it gets treated like other pronouns that start with h, and will use ni, when preceded by something. However, it doesn't do that for repetitive. It simply stays as hi, and the S gets attached. I had to look up examples of other words to confirm this.
@@MrDWeb22 Thx for your reply. It's indeed weird Chafe isn't mentioning that hni > hi change. Actually, I might have found an example in the dictionary (not the grammar) : "hi:ëde’ they (du) are in the lead." Regarding the pronoun chart, it uses the "reconstructed" spelling, like the verb roots given in the dictionary, then one needs to apply the regular sound changes (t>d, etc..) Regarding the negative, the two forms you gave don't seem to concord with Chafe (again, either because you said isnt complete, or I missed to apply a rule). Shouldnt the first form de:ninöe's be de'(h)ninöe's, otherwise it looks like the dualic? Shouldn't the 2nd form ta'de:ninöe's be da'de:ninöe's (Chafe p. 53 *ta'te- > da'de-) ? Thank you again :)
@Zdrange03 no it wouldn't conjugate that way. They're all treated like pronouns that start with h. When you negate any pronoun starting with letter H (besides the inclusive you&I), the H goes away and so does the glottal stop.
There's a speaker preference on dualic for the dual column. Some people will simply use a regular pronoun, and other times some make the dual column a De-verb. In that event, now you have to negate like you would for a De-verb.
Near the 29 minute mark I made a mistake. It should be hösakäho’ for me, or hösagäho’.
Hello, @ 8:34 you say "hi (h)ni", but when checking Chafe's seneca grammar, i don't find the rule where *hni > hi ? the rule i found is *hni > :ni (h drops and the previous vowel is lengthened, though here there isnt a vowel so not sure how that plays out ). Thx!
You definitely won't find everything in there. Even the pronoun chart in there uses older spelling with k where you'd find g today, and t where you'd find a d, among other things.
The 2 male prefix is always the weirdest one.
Regular 2 males like it
Hinöe's
Or, if you make it dualic
De:ninöe's
If you negate the regular one, de:ninöe's
If you negate the dualic version, ta'de:ninöe's
This is where (h)ni comes into play. Experience from several years of teaching this repeatedly has led me to explain it that this verb has an (h) on there so it gets treated like other pronouns that start with h, and will use ni, when preceded by something.
However, it doesn't do that for repetitive. It simply stays as hi, and the S gets attached. I had to look up examples of other words to confirm this.
@@MrDWeb22 Thx for your reply. It's indeed weird Chafe isn't mentioning that hni > hi change. Actually, I might have found an example in the dictionary (not the grammar) : "hi:ëde’ they
(du) are in the lead."
Regarding the pronoun chart, it uses the "reconstructed" spelling, like the verb roots given in the dictionary, then one needs to apply the regular sound changes (t>d, etc..)
Regarding the negative, the two forms you gave don't seem to concord with Chafe (again, either because you said isnt complete, or I missed to apply a rule).
Shouldnt the first form de:ninöe's be de'(h)ninöe's, otherwise it looks like the dualic?
Shouldn't the 2nd form ta'de:ninöe's be da'de:ninöe's (Chafe p. 53 *ta'te- > da'de-) ?
Thank you again :)
@Zdrange03 no it wouldn't conjugate that way. They're all treated like pronouns that start with h.
When you negate any pronoun starting with letter H (besides the inclusive you&I), the H goes away and so does the glottal stop.
There's a speaker preference on dualic for the dual column. Some people will simply use a regular pronoun, and other times some make the dual column a De-verb.
In that event, now you have to negate like you would for a De-verb.