Strange use of Quapaw article/aux.

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, R. Rankin wrote:
> Since you were discussing this earlier, I figured that what this was.  What I
> find strange is the part about agreeing with "the evidence".  I think I need
> to understand that a little better.

> > E=di  ahi=bi=ama=kki,              t?e=dha=bi=khe=ama.
> > There they arrived, they say when, he lay killed, they say.
> > jod 1890:178.5
>
> But it isn't an exact equivalent since the person in the horizontal position
> is subject of the clause in the Omaha example, but not in the Quapaw one.

> > I was at first a bit puzzled as to how to explain the agreement pattern of
> > the evidentials, but I'm now operating on the theory (which seems to work)
> > that they agree with the evidence underlying (no pun) the conclusion.
> > Sometimes that's a constituent of the sentence (object, subject, or
> > something else).  Sometimes it's merely implicit.
>
> I hope we can pin it down better than that.  See this is what happens when we
> get off into discourse.  I still hope it will turn out to be more grammatical
> than "merely implicit."  Too much wiggle room there.

Perhaps if there were any question whether such things existed, but the
numerous *the* examples show they do.  Flexibility can be a fault in an
analysis, but I'm not sure it's a fault in a grammar.  Difficult to learn,
maybe!  In these examples I've stuck with khe or dhaN.  The more numerous
*the* examples are coniderably harder to analyze.  For one thing, *the*
seems to be a favored or default choice.  For another, it's very hard to
tell what *the* might be referring to, even if there's an NP with a *the*
article in the context.  It may refer simply to "punctual" events, while
"*khe* might refer to durative events.  Of course, *khe* often does refer
to a constituent NP or some aspect of the verbal action not represented as
an NP, and I suppose *the* must often do so, too.  The problem is that
*the* and *dhaN* are not very "marked" articles, though *khe* and *ge*
are, referring here to frequency of occurrence.

Subject agreement:

jod 1890:35.3
si=khe          snede'=axti=hnaN=i=khe
the foot(print) was always very long

jod 1890:32.1
ppa'hewadhahuni wiN e=di=khe=ama
a man-eating hill   was lying there

An object:

jod 1890:222.4
ihe'=dha=bi=khe=ama
it {an arrow] had been placed (or mounted) [on a wall], they say
[*ihe'* also refers to the arrow's shape.]

Probably a reference to the implicit action of the verb

jod 1890:379.7
ni'as^iNga j^u'ba sigdha'=bi=khe=ama
some persons      left a trail in a long line, they say
[shape attributed to the trail]

jod 1890:148.5
du'ba z^aN'=bi=khe=ama
four  it as sleeps (days), they say
[or perhaps to the set of four?]

Perhaps a reference to the trail/path evidencing the departure?

jod 1890:58.19-59.1
a'khi=a'gdha=i=khe
they [group of people at a dance] have gone home
[khe because of the set?]

jod 1890:149:7-8
agdha'=bi=khe=ama
they say he had gone homeward
[but not here]

Clearly a reference to the feather, but NP perhaps an object.

jod 1890:52.6
hiNxpe' wiN udhi'xpadha=bi=khe=ama
a feather   had fallen (he had discarded it by hand)

To a distant subject:

jod 1890:116.3-4

waba'gdheze z^iN'ga ...           "..."       a'=bi=dhaN=ama
manual              [when clause] [quotation] it said, they say
"When he had read the manual, it told him he would get a gun."

Who knows?

jod 1890:17.14
wasa'be    ghage'=xti=hnaN  naNz^iN'=bi=khe=ama
black bear just crying hard he stood there, they say
[perhaps the duration of time?]

When we have parallel examples of =bi=the=ama and =bi=khe=ama and
=bi=dhaN=ama, I think we can take it that they are doing similar things,
but differ somehow by "gender."  There are also parallel =tta=the and
=tta=khe as 'futures of surity', and parallel uses of =(i)=the=(di) and
=(i)=khe=(di) as 'when', and parallel uses of =the and =khe and =ge with
locative predicates.  This inclines me to understand =(i)=the and =(i)=khe
as parallel, too.