Ablaut in Dheigha (was Re: Dhegiha -akhe)

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Koontz John E wrote:
> I've just realized that I'm not positive that the auxiliaries always
> condition ablaut, or, to phrase it more carefully, the a-grade.  In fact,
> I think they don't, except with the future.

I've checked and the imperfective (or progressive) auxiliaries do not
condition ablaut.  Examples:

JOD 1890:356.
... wadha'the dhatha=i[=]dhaN e'   he'be dhath*e'[=]  akha*
    food      they eat   the  that piece he has eaten AUX

Here [=] represents replacing a space with =.

JOD 1890:578.5-6

T[t]ena! Na'=uha=xti ttaNg=e'gaN[=]aN'gadhiN s^e'na=awadhe
Why!     almost      big   like    we-the    he is exterminating us

*adhe'[=]akha* ha
he goes  AUX  DEC

Hey!  He's destroying those of us who at all big!

Most examples of auxiliary akha are in the form akh=ama, with the ama
quotative appended.  Like this:

JOD 1890:155.9

Xdhabe' maN's^i=adi[=]the maNa' kkaN'ha[=]khe
Tree    tall          the cliff edge      the

*a'gdhe[=]         akha*=a'ma
it was standing on AUX   QUOTE

Note:  maN's^i=adi 'tall' is a postpositional phrase 'in the sky'.  Notice
again the inserted -a- before the locative postposition =di.

There are plenty of examples of am=a'ma imperfectives, but examples of
just ama are rare.  Frankly, I suspect Dorsey glossed most of them as
quotatives by accident.  There a lot of examples of quotatives (to judge
from the gloss) after verbs ending in e.  I imagine some of them are
obviative quotatives, but a few are presumably imperfectives mistaken for
quotatives.

> (So, maybe the future and the imperfective are *not* exactly the same
> in formation.)

In fact they are different in formation.  The auxiliary after the future
=tte conditions the a-grade =tta, but the auxiliary after a non-future
verb does not.  The auxiliaries are the same (or both based on articles),
but in one case they form the future, in the other the imperfective or
progressive - I still don't claim to exactly understand the semantics of
thAt construction.

Incidentally, =the the 'evidently' evidential, also conditions ablaut in
the future, since the 'shall surely' future is =tta=the.

Given this last, I'm not sure if I'd say that the difference was in the
future (or irrealis) morpheme, or the auxiliary sense.

> Yet another thing I have to check.  I'm also fairly sure that the last
> stem in a relative clause before a definite article doesn't ablaut.

And it doesn't:

JOD 1890:421.1

S^i   ni'kkagahi ahi'=bi    *ehe'[=]akha*
Again chief      he arrived I said the

Again the chief whom I said had arived ...

(Interesting to notice the =bi under ehe'!)

JOD 1890:362.5

E'gidhe ... tti'=i=   the  ha, dhe' wahaN'  *adhe'[=]akha.*
Finally     he camped EVID DEC this set off he goes the

Finally ... this camp-mover camped.

=====

I believe this resolves two gaps in my knowledge of Omaha-Ponca that have
been embarassing me for a long time.