1This information was found
in Land of the
Spotted Eagle written by Luther Standing Bear, an Oglala (possibly Brulé)
Sioux (1868-1939). I do not know how well it holds in the modern day. Polynesian
cultures such as the Sāmoan people, are famous for lacking motherese.
2In his tale, Black Elk clarifies: "this was not a
dream, it happened," (Niedhart 2008, 15)
3By 'W sound' I am referring to [ʊ].
4Ullrich comments that oŋ resulted from
missionaries hearing uŋ as [õ]
(Ullrich 2008, 695), but
Manhart remarks oŋ is simply an alternate spelling of uŋ
meant to distinguish words with uŋ from pronouns and the verbs
úŋ to be, and úŋ to use,
(Buechel & Manhart 1998, xiii).
5Some analyses of Lakota phonology classify b
as phonemically /p/, and g as phonemically /k/, however, a very small set of
words contain [b] that is not predictable. Rood and Taylor call /b/
'marginally phonemic', (Rood and Taylor 1996, 443).
6Some of these sample languages actually have a
velar fricative [x] in their standard dialects, but it sounds very much like the
one in Lakota, which is a uvular fricative [χ].
7Some linguists consider s’,
š’, and ȟ’ ejectives.
8White Hat Sr. notes that in slang, the vowels in
ea and au (in words besides háu) can mix together
(White Hat Sr. 1999, 13).
His first example is philámayaye → philámayea
where the sound change rules given by Rood and Taylor (1996), would predict
[philámajæ]. His second example is lila wašte →
lilaušte, where we would expect [lila:ʃte].
9The only consonants that can end words in Lakota
are l (most frequent), n (second most frequent), b,
g, m, n, s, š, and ȟ
(Rood and Taylor 1996, 446).
10The rule, given in
Rood and Taylor (1996), is
actually more complicated than this. According to his wording, he further claims:
||become long 'ae' (as in 'bat')
11The fact that the diacritics used are somewhat
similar to one another is, unfortunately, a drawback in some cases. For instance
White Hat Sr. marks guttural consonants with overhead dots, but Manhart marks
unaspirated consonants as such.
12Rood and Taylor claim, without supporting
evidence, that a wedge easier to see than dot
Rood and Taylor 1975, 7). I
strongly object to this assumption. An argument in support of dots is that they
require less space, thereby consuming less ink, and intuitively are easier and
faster to draw consuming one stroke rather than two, especially if permitted to
morph into an accent mark in handwriting.