This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2008)

Sioux language test of Wikipedia at Wikimedia Incubator

Sioux is a Siouan language spoken by over 33,000 Sioux in the United States and Canada, making it the fifth most spoken indigenous language in the United States or Canada, behind Navajo, Cree, Inuit and Ojibwe.^[1][2]

Regional variation[link]

Sioux has three major regional varieties, with various sub-varieties:

1. Lakota (AKA Lakȟóta, Teton, Teton Sioux)
2. Western Dakota (AKA Yankton-Yanktonai or Dakȟóta, and erroneously classified, for a very long time, as “Nakota”^[3])
   • Yankton (Iháŋktȟuŋwaŋ)
   • Yanktonai (Iháŋktȟuŋwaŋna)
3. Eastern Dakota (AKA Santee-Sisseton or Dakhóta)
   • Santee (Isáŋyáthi: Bdewákhathuŋwaŋ, Waȟpékhute)
   • Sisseton (Sisíthuŋwaŋ, Waȟpéthuŋwaŋ)

Yankton-Yanktonai (Western Dakota) stands between Santee-Sisseton (Eastern Dakota) and Lakota within the dialect continuum. It is phonetically closer to Santee-Sisseton but lexically and grammatically it is much closer to Lakota. For this reason Lakota and Western Dakota are much more mutually intelligible than they are with Eastern Dakota. The assumed extent of mutual intelligibility is usually overestimated by speakers of the language. While Lakota and Yankton-Yanktonai speakers understand each other to a great extent, they each find it difficult to follow Santee-Sisseton speakers.

Distantly related to the Sioux language are the Assiniboine and Stoney languages, whose speakers use the self-designation term Nakhóta or Nakhóda. Speakers of Lakota and Dakota do not understand either of the two Nakoda languages (Assiniboine and Stoney).^[4]

Comparison of Sioux and Nakota dialects[link]

Phonetic differences[link]

The following table shows some of the main phonetic differences between the regional varieties of the Sioux language. The table also provides comparison with the two closely related Nakota languages (Assiniboine and Stoney). They are not considered part of the Siouan nation (neither by the Sioux nor by themselves.)^{[dubious – discuss]} These languages (particularly Stoney) are not considered to be mutually intelligible with the Sioux language.^[4][5]

Lexical differences[link]

There are also numerous lexical differences among the Sioux dialects as well as between the sub-dialects. Yankton-Yanktonai is in fact lexically closer to the Lakota language than it is to Santee-Sisseton. The following table gives some examples:^[4]

Writing systems[link]

Life for the Dakota changed significantly in the 1800s as the early years brought increased contact with white settlers, particularly Christian missionaries. The goal of the missionaries was to introduce the Dakota to Christian beliefs. To achieve this, the missions began to transcribe the Dakota language. In 1836, brothers Samuel and Gideon Pond, Rev. Stephen Return Riggs, and Dr. Thomas Williamson set out to begin translating hymns and Bible stories into Dakota. By 1852, Riggs and Williamson had completed a Dakota Grammar and Dictionary (Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Center). Eventually, the entire Bible had been translated.

Today, it is possible to find a variety of texts in Dakota. Traditional stories have been translated, children’s books, even games such as Pictionary and Scrabble. Despite such progress, written Dakota is not without its difficulties. The Pond brothers, Rev. Riggs, and Dr. Williamson were not the only missionaries documenting the Dakota language. Around the same time, missionaries in other Dakota bands were developing their own versions of the written language. Since the 1900s, professional linguists have been creating their own versions of the orthography. The Dakota have also been making modifications. “Having so many different writing systems is causing confusion, conflict between our [the Dakota] people, causing inconstancy in what is being taught to students, and making the sharing of instructional and other materials very difficult” (SICC).

Prior to the white man’s way of writing, the Dakota did have a writing system of their own: one of representational pictographs. In pictographic writing, a drawing represents exactly what it means. For example, a drawing of a dog literally meant a dog. Palmer writes that,

“As a written language, it [pictographs] was practical enough that it allowed the Lakota to keep a record of years in their winter counts which can still be understood today, and it was in such common usage that pictographs were recognized and accepted by census officials in the 1880s, who would receive boards or hides adorned with the head of the household’s name depicted graphically” (pg. 34).

For the missionaries however, documenting the Bible through pictographs was impractical and presented significant challenges.

¹ Saskatchewan uses c̀ for White Hat's ċ

² Saskatchewan uses s̀ for White Hat's ṡ

Structure[link]

Sound system[link]

See Lakota sound system and Dakota sound system.

Morphology[link]

Dakota is an agglutinating language. It features suffixes, prefixes, and infixes. Each affix has a specific rule in Dakota. For example, the suffix –pi is added to the verb to mark the plurality of an animate subject (Shaw, pg. 10). “With respect to number agreement for objects, only animate objects are marked, and these by the verbal prefix wicha-“(Shaw, pg. 11). Also, there is no gender agreement in Dakota.

Example of the use of –pi:

• 1. ma-khata ‘I am hot’ (I-hot)
• khata-pi ‘they are hot’ (0-hot-pl.)

Example of the use of wicha-

• 1. wa-kte ‘I kill him’ (0-I-kill)
• wicha-wa-kte ‘I kill them’ (them-I-kill)

(Shaw, pg. 12) Infixes are rare in Dakota, but do exist when a statement features predicates requiring two “patients.”

Example of infixing:

• 1. iye-checa ‘to resemble’
• iye-ni-ma-checa ‘I resemble you’
• ‘you resemble me’
• 2. iskola ‘be as small as’
• i-ni-ma-skola ‘I am as small as you’
• ‘you are as small as I’

Syntax[link]

Dakota has subject/object/ verb (SOV) word order. Along the same line, the language also has postpositions. Examples of word order:

• 1. wichasta-g wax aksica-g kte
• (man-DET bear-DET kill)
• ‘the man killed the bear’
• 2. wax aksicas-g wichasta-g kte
• (bear-DET man-DET kill)
• ‘the bear killed the man’

(Shaw, pg. 10)

According to Shaw, word order exemplifies grammatical relations.

In Dakota, the verb is the most important part of the sentence. There are many verb forms in Dakota, although they are “dichotomized into a stative-active classification, with the active verbs being further subcategorized as transitive or intransitive” (Shaw, pg. 11). Some examples of this are:

• 1. stative:
• ma-khata ‘I am hot’ (I-hot)
• ni-khata ‘you are hot’ (you-hot)
• khata ‘he/she/it is hot’ (0-hot)
• u-khata ‘we (you and I) are hot’ (we-hot)
• u-khata-pi ‘we (excl. or pl) are hot’ (we-hot-pl.)
• ni-khata-pi ‘you (pl.) are hot’ (you-hot-pl.)
• khata-pi ‘they are hot’ (0-hot-pl.)

• 2. active intransitive
• wa-hi ‘I arrive (coming)’ (I-arrive)
• ya-hi ‘you arrive’ (you-arrive)
• hi ‘he arrives’
• u-hi ‘we (you and I) arrive’
• u-hi-pi ‘we (excl. or pl.) arrive’
• ya-hi-pi ‘you (pl.) arrive’
• hi-pi ‘they arrive’

• 3. active transitive
• wa-kte ‘I kill him’ (0-I-kill)
• wicha-wa-kte ‘I kill them’ (them-I-kill)
• chi-kte ‘I kill you’ (I-you (portmanteau)- kill)
• ya-kte ‘you kill him’ (0-you-kill)
• wicha-ya-kte ‘you kill them’ (them- you-kill)
• wicha-ya-kte-pi ‘you (pl.) kill them’
• ma-ya-kte ‘you kill me’ (me-you-kill)
• u-ya-kte-pi ‘you kill us’ (we-you-kill-pl.)
• ma-ktea ‘he kills me’ (0-me-kill-pl.)
• ni-kte-pi ‘they kill you’ (0-you-kill-pl.)
• u-ni-kte-pi ‘we kill you’ (we-you-kill-pl.)
• wicha-u-kte ‘we (you and I) kill them’ (them-we-kill)

(Shaw, pgs. 11-12)

The phonology, morphology, and syntax of Dakota are very complex. There are a number of broad rules that become more and more specific as they are more closely examined. The components of the language become somewhat confusing and more difficult to study as more sources are examined, as each scholar has a somewhat different opinion on the basic characteristics of the language.

Notes[link]

Bibliography[link]

• DeMallie, Raymond J. (2001). Sioux until 1850. In R. J. DeMallie (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Vol. 13, Part 2, pp. 718–760). W. C. Sturtevant (Gen. Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-16-050400-7.
• Parks, Douglas R.; & Rankin, Robert L. (2001). The Siouan languages. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Vol. 13, Part 1, pp. 94–114). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
• de Reuse, Willem J. (1987). One hundred years of Lakota linguistics (1887–1987). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 13-42. (Online version: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/509).
• de Reuse, Willem J. (1990). A supplementary bibliography of Lakota languages and linguistics (1887–1990). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15 (2), 146-165. (Studies in Native American languages 6). (Online version: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/441).

• Rood, David S.; & Taylor, Allan R. (1996). Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan language. In Handbook of North American Indians: Languages (Vol. 17, pp. 440–482). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

• Eastman, M. H. (1995). Dahcotah or, life and legends of the Sioux around Fort Snelling. Afton: Afton Historical Society Press.

• Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: [1]

• Howard, J. H. (1966). Anthropological papers number 2: the Dakota or Sioux Indians: a study in human ecology. Vermillion: Dakota Museum.

• Hunhoff, B. (2005, November 30). It’s safely recorded in a book at last. South Dakota Magazine: Editor’s Notebook. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from [2]

• McCrady, D.G. (2006). Living with strangers: the ninetheenth-century Sioux and the Canadian-American borderlands. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

• Palmer, J.D. (2008). The Dakota peoples: a history of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota through 1863. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.

• Parks, D.R. & DeMallie, R.J. (1992). Sioux, Assiniboine, and Stoney Dialects: A Classification . Anthropological Linguistics vol. 34, nos. 1-4

• Riggs, S.R., & Dorsey, J.O. (Ed.). (1973). Dakota grammar, texts, and ethnography. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, Inc.

• Robinson, D. (1956). A history of the Dakota or Sioux Indians: from their earliest traditions and first contact with white men to the final settlement of the last of them upon reservations and the consequent abandonment of the old tribal life. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, Inc.

• Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Center. Our languages: Dakota Lakota Nakota. Retrieved November 30, 2008. Web site: [3]

• Shaw, P.A. (1980). Theoretical issues in Dakota phonology and morphology. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

• The Bismark Tribune. (2006, March 26). Scrabble helps keep Dakota language alive. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from [4]

• Utley, R.M. (1963). The last days of the Sioux nation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• Ullrich, Jan. (2008). New Lakota Dictionary. & Incorporating the Dakota Dialects of Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai (Lakota Language Consortium). ISBN 0-9761082-9-1.

External links[link]

• Lakota Language FORUM
• Our Languages: Dakota, Nakota, Lakota (Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre)
• Texts in Dakota and Lakota

Yup'ik shaman exorcising evil spirits from a sick boy. Nushagak, Alaska, 1890s.^[1]

"Medicine man" or "medicine woman" are English terms used to describe traditional healers and spiritual leaders among Native American and other indigenous or aboriginal peoples. Anthropologists tend to prefer the term "shaman," a specific term for a spiritual mediator from the Tungusic peoples of Siberia.^[2]

The medicine man and woman in North America[link]

Role in native society[link]

The primary function of these "medicine elders" (who are not always male) is to secure the help of the spirit world, including the Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka in the language of the Lakota Sioux), for the benefit of the entire community.

Sometimes the help sought may be for the sake of healing disease, sometimes it may be for the sake of healing the psyche, sometimes the goal is to promote harmony between human groups or between humans & nature. So the term "medicine man/woman" is not entirely inappropriate, but it greatly oversimplifies and also skews the depiction of the people whose role in society complements that of the chief. These people are not the Native American equivalent of the Chinese "barefoot doctors", herbalists, nor of the emergency medical technicians who ride rescue vehicles.

To be recognized as the one who performs this function of bridging between the natural world and the spiritual world for the benefit of the community, an individual must be validated in his role by that community. Medicine men and women study through a medicine society or from a single teacher.

Cultural context[link]

An Ojibwa medicine man preparing an herbal remedy.

The term "medicine people" is commonly used in Native American communities, for example, when Arwen Nuttall (Cherokee) of the National Museum of the American Indian writes, "The knowledge possessed by medicine people is privileged, and it often remains in particular families."^[3]

Native Americans tend to be quite reluctant to discuss issues about medicine or medicine people with non-Indians. In some cultures, the people will not even discuss these matters with Indians from other tribes. In most tribes medicine elders are not expected to advertise or introduce themselves as such. As Nuttall writes, "An inquiry to a Native person about religious beliefs or ceremonies is often viewed with suspicion.^[3] One example of this was the Apache medicine cord or Izze-kloth, whose purpose and use by Apache medicine elders was a mystery to nineteenth century ethnologists because "the Apache look upon these cords as so sacred that strangers are not allowed to see them, much less handle them or talk about them."^[4]

The 1954 version of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, reflects the poorly grounded perceptions of the people whose use of the term effectively defined it for the people of that time: "a man supposed to have supernatural powers of curing disease and controlling spirits." In effect, such definitions were not explanations of what these "medicine people" were to their own communities, but instead reported on the consensus of socially and psychologically remote observers when they tried to categorize these individuals.^{[citation needed]} The term "medicine man/woman," like the term "shaman", has been criticized by Native Americans, as well as other specialists in the fields of religion and anthropology.

The term "medicine man/woman" was also frequently used by Europeans to refer to African traditional healers, also known as "witch doctors" or "fetish men/women".

See also[link]

References[link]

v t e Traditional medicine East Asian Traditional Chinese Japanese Kampo Traditional Korean Traditional Mongolian Traditional Tibetan South & Southeast Asian Ayurveda Traditional Sri Lankan Jamu Siddha Traditional Thai Unani Mediterranean & Near Eastern Byzantine Ancient Egyptian Ancient Greek Medieval Islamic Ancient Iranian Ancient Roman African Inyanga Muti Nganga Sangoma Yoruba Iboga Americas Ayahuasca Aztec Traditional Brazilian Maya Australasia & Oceania Bush medicine General Alternative History of alternative medicine Health care Herbalism Naturopathy Prehistoric Western Medieval Medicinal plant conservation